Every woman should have the right to control what happens with her own body.
I recently had a young man reach out to me and ask about why I am such a vocal supporter of a woman’s right to choose to have an abortion. He asked me if I would be able and willing to boil down my support for abortion rights into four clear points so that he could better understand. I very much appreciate his interest in seeking more information and seeking truth, so I wrote him back, and I thought I would post my response here in hopes of inspiring some discussion around the issue of a woman’s right to choose, particularly considering the all-out assault on women’s rights in state legislatures around the U.S..
Why Do I Support a Woman’s Right to Choose?
1. Every woman should have the right to control what happens with her own body. For better or for worse, a fetus growing inside of a woman has dire consequences for a woman’s body and her life. Having a child can be a very dangerous physical change, and it undoubtedly will change every aspect of a woman’s life during pregnancy and after. Thus, a woman should have the right to decide what will or will not happen in her womb. It is absurd to think that a legislator or church or anyone should be able to tell a woman what she can or cannot do with her body. As part of this point, it is important to understand that until a fetus reaches viability (usually around the 24th or 25th week of pregnancy), it acts biologically no different than any other parasitic organism. That language is SUPER harsh, so I tend not to share it, but the point is the same. If a life cannot live outside of a womb, it should not have rights that outweigh that of the woman carrying it.
2. That brings me to my second point. Those who say that abortion should not be legal and accessible for woman are essentially saying that the life of the fetus is more important than the life of the woman carrying the fetus. Though many try to say, “But we’re saying that the life of the fetus is EQUAL to the life of the mother,” there is no room for equality of livelihood when one being’s livelihood depends completely upon the livelihood of the other being. With that in mind, how can we possibly tell a woman that her life (one that is fully realized and viable) is less important than the potential human life that grows inside of her? Why does the potential human being that grows inside of her (and is completely dependent upon her to live) have rights that supersede her own? If we believe that the woman should be able to live her life to its fullest potential and that she is an independent being, then we have to respect her right to make a decision to value her life over the life of a fetus. It should be noted that while there is no doubt that a fetus is, biologically, human life, the real question is when personhood begins. I do not believe that a fetus can be considered a child (or a person) until it can survive outside of the womb. Until that point, it is a mass of developing cells that have the potential to become a person. This is an important distinction because of the moral question involved in abortion. I do not believe that to have an abortion is to kill a baby. It is to end the growth process of a mass of human cells. Again, to make the point, I will use a harsh analogy. Technically speaking, cancer in a human being consists of human life (it is alive, and the cells, though cancerous, are human cells). Would we ever argue that a woman should not have a surgery to remove cancer because it is human life? No way! As a result, we need to have a clear understanding of personhood in order to argue abortion politics.
3. People often say that we should eliminate abortion because adoption is always an option. In the United States right now, there are approximately 107,000 children in foster care waiting to be adopted, but only about 53,000 of them will actually be adopted. This is, in part, because only 37% of those interested in adoption will adopt from foster care; the rest will adopt privately and internationally. Because of this reality, more and more children are simply aging out of foster care and into adult life. Within that reality, because of subtle and not-so-subtle racist attitudes, children of color are significantly less likely to be adopted than white children and spend more time in foster care. Children who grow up in the foster system are four times as likely to experience physical and sexual abuse and neglect. They are more likely to abuse drugs. They are significantly more likely to drop out of high school. They are more likely to spend time in prison. Essentially, those who spend their lives in foster care are significantly more likely to have a really, really, really tough life. Now consider further that 1.3 million abortions are performed in the U.S. every year. If even 1 million of those children were born and only 80% of them went into the adoptive system, we would have another 800,000 children who need to be adopted. It’s an untenable option, and it is an option that will only further guarantee that many children will experience abuse, neglect, and trauma in the foster care system. When there are so many children in this world who already need homes (both domestically and internationally), why should we pressure women to bring a fetus to full term if that child will be unwanted? Why should we put at least 800,000 more children into the adoptive system? For simple practicality sake, abortion must continue to be an option.
4. Lastly, any part of this conversation needs to be about the concept of “respect the right, reduce the need.” Rather than denying a woman her own bodily autonomy to protect the life of a potential person, why don’t we put our energies into preventing unwanted pregnancies? Let’s face it: we have a TERRIBLE system of sex education in this country. Very few students who are of age to produce a child can tell you much of anything about how a child is created and how to prevent a child from being created if they were to have sex. Thus, any conversation about abortion needs to include conversations about education and access to contraception. I find it frankly absurd that the same politicians who call for an end to abortion also speak out against the use of contraception. Just about every single person will at some time have sex, and it is our responsibility to empower them with the knowledge and tools to make sure that sex is as safe as possible and can be enjoyed without fear of unwanted pregnancy.
There is likely a whole heap more that I could say about a woman’s right to choose, but when asked to boil my views down to four points, this is what I came up with.
What would you add? What do you disagree with? I’m curious to see if we can get some good discussion going in the comments.
About Jamie Utt
Point 1: Where is the outrage over the fact that a woman doesn’t have control over her own body in a great many instances: For example: Suicide, it is illegal in a number of US states, assisted suicide is illegal. Taking drugs is illegal , all of these things are taking away from a womans right to do with her body as she sees fit. Yet we don’t have the huge debate over it. Why not? imho, it is because abortion is unique to women and women only and the mouthpieces of the world only care about what happens to women. A number of people who support a womans right to choose what happens to her body don’t support a man right to choose what happens to his body is the woman decides to have the child. He will not have to use his body to support a child that he may not have wanted and had absolutely zero actual right to control.
Point 2: Your viability definition depends on the notion that it is not viable because it completely depends on her to live. I hate to tell you but that condition will exist for years, not months. So following your logic, anyone who is a caregiver should be able to kill a child as long as that child is completely dependant on them to live. The fact that the baby gets its nourishment from a umbilical cord or from a bottle or boob isn’t any different (to the child).
Point 3: The reason so few children are adopted is because they enter foster care at a later age, with substance abuse problem and psycological problems. If we adopt at birth the adoption rate is much higher. What you are saying though in essence is “Better dead than have a tough life”.
Point 4: The fact that we have a terrible system of sex education doesn’t add to or subtract a womans right to choose. I think perhaps that is a red herring and is used as an excuse.
But is actually not the issue. The issue is the life inside the woman’s body. Coincidentally, legislators tell women and men what they can and cannot do with their bodies all the time. That is precisely the point of legislation.
That is bad logic, and here is why: once a baby is born, it cannot live without other people taking care of it. By your logic, its rights should not outweigh the rights of the woman who birthed it. The notion that one’s right to live should be outweighed by someone else’s “right” not to be inconvenienced does not parse.
No, it does not. They only argue that the baby has as much a right to live as that woman. However, the pro-abortion supporters are making the reverse: the life of a woman is more than the life of a baby (coincidentally, this applies to whether the baby is inside or outside of the woman’s body).
No one is saying that women should not be able value her life over the life of the baby. The argument is that she should not be able to take the baby’s life just because she values her own life more. The argument you make is tantamount to saying that if a woman does not want to take care of her five-year-old because the child negatively affects her life, she should be able to kill the child. While abortion supporters may have no issue with that, it is still flawed logic. You do not get to kill people because you do not want to put up with them.
So instead of letting those children live and pushing people looking to adopt to adopt foster kids, we should abort potential foster kids? Just to keep track: fetuses are like parasites, fetuses are not babies, and foster kids would be better off dead. Again, that is truly terrible, impressively idiotic logic.
Preventing unwanted pregnancies is a sensible idea, which is precisely why no one who supports abortion puts their energy into doing that. It is much easier to claim there is a “war on women” than it is to talk about the cultural attitudes that lead people to have unprotected sex or change social attitudes towards adoption and foster care or address many of the underlying reasons why women have abortions.
I do not support abortion for the same reason I do not support the death penalty: I disagree with the needless taking of life. However, I do understand that there are circumstances in which taking someone’s life in necessary. Not being ready to parent a child is not one of them. You do not have the right to take someone’s life because they inconvenience. Calling babies parasites is not going to change that (although it does raise the question of when said “parasite” stops being such).
The fundamental problem abortion supporters have is that you ignore the morality at play. It is the immorality of killing a child that makes people oppose abortion, and curious and ironic to watch abortion supporters advocate for women’s personhood (although I am unaware of anyone denying it) by denying someone else’s personhood.
You need a new hobby. Thinking and then writing up the results isn’t really working out for you.
@WTF?says:
At least he stated his opinion & he is adding something into the conversation, unlike you Sir.
“The issue is the life inside the woman’s body. Coincidentally, legislators tell women and men what they can and cannot do with their bodies all the time. That is precisely the point of legislation.”
No, its not — this is from galerouth.blogspot.com
“NO HUMAN ( that means the FETUS, too) has a right to life or any due process rights by the 14th amendment to use another human’s body or body parts AGAINST their will, civil and constitutional rights: that’s why you are not forced to donate your kidney—the human fetus is no exception; this is supported by the equal protection clause of the 14th amendment AND 13th amendment, which makes reproductive slavery unconstitutional.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Equal_Protection_Clause
“Section 1. Neither slavery nor involuntary servitude, except as a punishment for crime whereof the party shall have been duly convicted, shall exist within the United States, or any place subject to their jurisdiction. ”
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thirteenth_Amendment_to_the_United_States_Constitution
this makes viability unconstitutional because pregnancy is not a crime.
consensual sex=/= a legal, binding contract to an unwanted fetus to live; and abortion is not murder, the unlawful killing with intent.”
“That is bad logic, and here is why: once a baby is born, it cannot live without other people taking care of it. By your logic, its rights should not outweigh the rights of the woman who birthed it. The notion that one’s right to live should be outweighed by someone else’s “right” not to be inconvenienced does not parse.”
Wrong, a newborn is not physically attached to a woman’s body, a fetus is — the human fetus is a parasite.
“As a zygote, it invaded the woman’s uterus using its TROPHOBLAST cells, hijacked her immune system by using NEUROKININ B, HCG and INDOLEAMINE 2, 3-DIOXYGENASE — so her body doesn’t kill it, and it can continue stealing her nutrients to survive, and causing her harm or potential death.”
“They only argue that the baby has as much a right to live as that woman. However, the pro-abortion supporters are making the reverse: the life of a woman is more than the life of a baby (coincidentally, this applies to whether the baby is inside or outside of the woman’s body).”
I already pointed out that reproductive slavery is unconstitutional— after birth, the BABY has legal rights of its own.
“The argument is that she should not be able to take the baby’s life just because she values her own life more. The argument you make is tantamount to saying that if a woman does not want to take care of her five-year-old because the child negatively affects her life, she should be able to kill the child. While abortion supporters may have no issue with that, it is still flawed logic. You do not get to kill people because you do not want to put up with them.”
‘A fetus is a not a baby, and a BABY is not physically attached to the woman’s body; repeat: “NO HUMAN ( that means the FETUS, too) has a right to life or any due process rights by the 14th amendment to use another human’s body or body parts AGAINST their will, civil and constitutional rights: that’s why you are not forced to donate your kidney—the human fetus is no exception; this is supported by the equal protection clause of the 14th amendment AND 13th amendment, which makes reproductive slavery unconstitutional.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Equal_Protection_Clause
“Section 1. Neither slavery nor involuntary servitude, except as a punishment for crime whereof the party shall have been duly convicted, shall exist within the United States, or any place subject to their jurisdiction. ”
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thirteenth_Amendment_to_the_United_States_Constitution
this makes viability unconstitutional because pregnancy is not a crime.
consensual sex=/= a legal, binding contract to an unwanted fetus to live.’
“No, it does not. They only argue that the baby has as much a right to live as that woman. However, the pro-abortion supporters are making the reverse: the life of a woman is more than the life of a baby (coincidentally, this applies to whether the baby is inside or outside of the woman’s body).”
WRONG, ONCE A FETUS IS BORN — IT HAS ITS OWN LEGAL RIGHTS TO LIFE, NOT BEFORE…BECAUSE IT’S A PARASITE TO A WOMAN’S BODY AND SHE HAS THE RIGHT TO REMOVE ANY UNWANTED BEING INSIDE HER.
“So instead of letting those children live and pushing people looking to adopt to adopt foster kids, we should abort potential foster kids? Just to keep track: fetuses are like parasites, fetuses are not babies, and foster kids would be better off dead. Again, that is truly terrible, impressively idiotic logic.”
THE POT CALLING THE KETTLE BLACK.
“which is precisely why no one who supports abortion puts their energy into doing that. It is much easier to claim there is a “war on women” than it is to talk about the cultural attitudes that lead people to have unprotected sex or change social attitudes towards adoption and foster care or address many of the underlying reasons why women have abortions.”
Hello, sex -ed… but you can talk about preventing pregnancies until you are blue in the face— people just want to have unprotected sex, and they do it wrong, thus pregnancies happen….but that is not a good reason to be keep an unwanted pregnancies and to be forced into immature motherhood, which has society at large, just because people like you hate abortions.
A woman’s abortion is none of your damn business, and please STOP pretending that it is.
“The fundamental problem abortion supporters have is that you ignore the morality at play.”
No, morality is not intrinsic nor objective, but subjective — that’s why there will be millions of women, who will ignore your morality about abortion, and will get one to make themselves free better.
galerouth,
you cite the Thirteenth Amendment
“Section 1. Neither slavery nor involuntary servitude, except as a punishment for crime whereof the party shall have been duly convicted, shall exist within the United States, or any place subject to their jurisdiction. ”
The problem is that the legal meaning of these words isn’t the same as the common understanding; for example forced military service is not involuntary servitude. If the supreme court can bend language in the case of military service, it can also bend language in other cases.
“The problem is that the legal meaning of these words isn’t the same as the common understanding; for example forced military service is not involuntary servitude.”
No can has ever said to me, using the law AND showing me the proof, that the draft is not involuntary servitude…. but all I hear is: “IT’S THE LAW”.
‘It is a violation of the Fifth Amendment which forbids the government from depriving anyone of “life, liberty, or property without due process of law.” Being forced into the military has the potential to deprive someone of all three.’
http://terrymitchell.wrytestuff.com/swa420556.htm
but again, there’s a big difference between liberty and freedom in a legal sense.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Involuntary_servitude
“is a United States legal and constitutional term for a person laboring against that person’s will to benefit another, under some form of coercion”
Even if that granted a right to abortion, that doesn’t mean that people can’t be prevented from performing abortions. That would just make coat hanger abortions legal. Even RU-486 can probably be controlled by the FDA.
Ironically, that would make it unconstitutional to collect child support, get drafted, or even criminalizing the neglect of a dependent.
The equal protection clause only states that everyone should have equal rights. It doesn’t say women have a right to abortion. It just says that if men or whites or some such have a right to abortion then you have to give that right to women and minorities.
‘A fetus is a not a baby, and a BABY is not physically attached to the woman’s body; repeat: “NO HUMAN ( that means the FETUS, too) has a right to life or any due process rights by the 14th amendment to use another human’s body or body parts AGAINST their will, civil and constitutional rights: that’s why you are not forced to donate your kidney—the human fetus is no exception; this is supported by the equal protection clause of the 14th amendment AND 13th amendment, which makes reproductive slavery unconstitutional.’
I say, if it’s used in this way, it supports a woman’s right to abort.
Galerouth, the wording of the 14th Amendment is so brilliantly broad that it can actually be used by anti-abortion advocates to support their position. More so, if the 14th Amendment applied as you think it does, then it is technically a violation of men’s rights to force them to pay child support by making them get jobs.
Roe v Wade makes viability constitutional: The decision held that the state could not prohibit abortion in the first trimester of pregnancy; in the second trimester, states could issue regulations “that are reasonably related to maternal health”; and in the final trimester, once the fetus is viable beyond the womb, the state could regulate or even prohibit abortion except in cases “where it is necessary, in appropriate medical judgment, for the preservation of the life or health of the mother.”
A fetus is a not parasite. And while a newborn is not physically attached to a woman’s body, it cannot survive without someone, usually the mother, taking care of it, which means it makes use of another person’s body. That is essentially the same situation that abortion presents, meaning that by the pro-abortion logic, any woman with a child can at any time kill the child should she no longer want it. That the child is a human being is irrelevant since a fetus is also human, and that clearly does not grant it any rights in the pro-abortion view. And for the record, fetus is synonymous with baby.
Are you telling me that people arguing for abortion are spending just as much time pushing for sex education? You mean like the author did in his article or like you did in your comments? When we see debates about abortion, the vast majority of the discussion is not about preventing unwanted pregnancies, but why abortion is murder or why anyone who does not support abortion wants to control women’s bodies. If people spent less time trying to push moronic arguments, they would have more time to actually educate people about sex.
As for abortion not being my business, you are wrong for two reasons: 1) because if the woman I am with wants to have an abortion, the child she is killing is just as much my child as hers, and 2) the pro-abortion crowd demands my support.
If you think that morality is subjective, then you have no basis for arguing about women’s “right” to choose. The only reason someone would have to respect your “right” is if there is an objective morality at play. If morality is whatever we choose, then people can freely ignore your rights without issue, and technically you would have no rights to begin with.
“Galerouth, the wording of the 14th Amendment is so brilliantly broad that it can actually be used by anti-abortion advocates to support their position. More so, if the 14th Amendment applied as you think it does, then it is technically a violation of men’s rights to force them to pay child support by making them get jobs.”
No really, again: ‘A fetus is a not a baby, and a BABY is not physically attached to the woman’s body; repeat: “NO HUMAN ( that means the FETUS, too) has a right to life or any due process rights by the 14th amendment to use another human’s body or body parts AGAINST their will, civil and constitutional rights: that’s why you are not forced to donate your kidney—the human fetus is no exception; this is supported by the equal protection clause of the 14th amendment AND 13th amendment, which makes reproductive slavery unconstitutional.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Equal_Protection_Clause
“Section 1. Neither slavery nor involuntary servitude, except as a punishment for crime whereof the party shall have been duly convicted, shall exist within the United States, or any place subject to their jurisdiction. ”
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thirteenth_Amendment_to_the_United_States_Constitution
this makes viability unconstitutional because pregnancy is not a crime.
consensual sex=/= a legal, binding contract to an unwanted fetus to live.’
I don’t know how the anti-abortion crowd can used what I quoted from the equal protection clause of the 14th amendment to support their beliefs, and I believe what I wrote down actually supports male abortion rights —if a woman can get an abortion to stop being a future parent and end all the legal responsibilities that comes with it, so can a man.
“Roe v Wade makes viability constitutional: The decision held that the state could not prohibit abortion in the first trimester of pregnancy; in the second trimester, states could issue regulations “that are reasonably related to maternal health”; and in the final trimester, once the fetus is viable beyond the womb, the state could regulate or even prohibit abortion except in cases “where it is necessary, in appropriate medical judgment, for the preservation of the life or health of the mother.”
My argument supported by the constitution wasn’t used in that case, and ROE wasn’t about viability but if the woman has a right to abort or not.
“A fetus is a not parasite.”
science proves you wrong: “As a zygote, it invaded the woman’s uterus using its TROPHOBLAST cells, hijacked her immune system by using NEUROKININ B, HCG and INDOLEAMINE 2, 3-DIOXYGENASE — so her body doesn’t kill it, and it can continue stealing her nutrients to survive, and causing her harm or potential death.”
http://galerouth.blogspot.com/
” And while a newborn is not physically attached to a woman’s body, it cannot survive without someone, usually the mother, taking care of it, which means it makes use of another person’s body.”
that’s moot, the abortion/parasite issue is: a fetus is attached to the woman’s body and she doesn’t want it inside her, anymore — and this removal of this parasite, will result in its death.
“That is essentially the same situation that abortion presents, meaning that by the pro-abortion logic, any woman with a child can at any time kill the child should she no longer want it. ”
That’s really stupid because there is a thing called MURDER and it’s ILLEGAL— so please stop lying and grasping at straws.
“That the child is a human being is irrelevant since a fetus is also human, and that clearly does not grant it any rights in the pro-abortion view. And for the record, fetus is synonymous with baby.”
read again, the science and LAW that I already posted, and a fetus =/= child or baby, according science.
“Are you telling me that people arguing for abortion are spending just as much time pushing for sex education?”
I don’t KNOW what other people are doing; repeat: you can talk about preventing pregnancies until you are blue in the face— people just want to have unprotected sex, and they do it wrong, thus pregnancies happens…but that is not a good reason to be keep an unwanted pregnancy and to be forced into immature motherhood, which harms society at large, just because people like you hate abortions.
“but why abortion is murder”
It’s not.
“or why anyone who does not support abortion wants to control women’s bodies.”
because you people DO… you support reproductive slavery of women, your thoughts are UNCONSTITUTIONAL and will harm society — but you don’t care or can think past your own non-legal, unscientific, appeal to emotion fallacy opinion.
“If people spent less time trying to push moronic arguments, they would have more time to actually educate people about sex.”
I’M GLAD THAT YOU ARE STARTING TO PASS YOUR non-legal, unscientific, appeal to emotion fallacy opinion.
“As for abortion not being my business, you are wrong for two reasons: 1) because if the woman I am with wants to have an abortion, the child she is killing is just as much my child as hers”
WRONG, EVEN IF THE WOMAN IS CARRYING “YOUR” FETUS, IT’S UNWANTED BY HER…YOUR OPINION AGAINST ABORTION IS MOOT, AND WILL ALWAYS BE MOOT, TO HER RIGHT TO ABORT IT.
” 2) the pro-abortion crowd demands my support.”
NOT WITH YOUR FLAWED ARGUMENTS.
“If you think that morality is subjective, then you have no basis for arguing about women’s “right” to choose”
What does subjective means? and by the way, all rights/LAWS are subjective, anyways — it’s just that my relative morality is supported by law ( which is not intrinsic)…. even if abortion was illegal, the fetus would still have no intrinsic right to life using my body, because I can abort it at anytime I want, by using non-legal means.
the natural abortion secret is: 10 grams of both vitamin c and l-tryptophan for 15-20 days.
“If morality is whatever we choose, then people can freely ignore your rights without issue, and technically you would have no rights to begin with.”
Welcome to Nihilism.
These are dated arguments Jamie. Limiting our discussion to North America, the dangers inherent from childbirth are relatively rare (in the magnitude of less than .01% of births). The rate is comparable to deaths from legal abortions (with some variation based on timing).
The most important question of freedom and autonomy is whether one (man or woman) desires to become a parent for the rest of their lives. We’re not talking about 9 months, rather, a decision that will directly impact individuals for 70-80 years!!
As to the morality of terminating a life: I draw distinction at some level of cognitive sentience, with the understanding that there remains debate around when this takes hold. I don’t consider a fertilized human egg to be a life form, but once it is considered sentient, I don’t put extreme argumentative weight on whether it resides inside or outside of a womb – when it comes to terminating this human life, broader societal morality considerations counterweight individual autonomy.
Practically – I tend to support the original spirit of Roe v Wade, with the addition that men be given the choice to disentangle themselves from parenthood early in the pregnancy for exactly the same reason I am afforded the right not to be a parent.
a parasite stops “being such” when it is no long ATTACHED to its host for Survival. Children are vulnerable. They may not be able to live without assistance from adults, but they aren’t physically attached to another living thing in order to survive. You’re viewing the argument through philosophical eyes, not logical eyes so I find it interesting that you find his logic flawed while your arguments aren’t based in logic but morals.
If you look at it LOGICALLY it all makes complete sense. you are looking at it morally (which doesn’t dimiss the validity of your argument at all) But to fight logic with morals is a losing battle.
Seems from what you’ve written that life itself (spirit/soul/intangible) is more important than what things happen to that person (body/phsyical/tangible) in life. You could very much rather have a child starving on the streets than to have that child not exsist because even if life is a miserable one, it should still be lived.
Morally sound.. but that doesn’t dismiss the equally logically sound arguments
@Lil Bit
“a parasite stops “being such” when it is no long ATTACHED to its host for Survival. Children are vulnerable. They may not be able to live without assistance from adults, but they aren’t physically attached to another living thing in order to survive.”
Infants are are 100% dependent on others for survival, not just “vulnerable.” Without human intervention, there is 0% chance of survival. 0%. No different than prior to birth, except they may survive a little longer, depending on the conditions they are in.
These are facts, nothing to do with philosphy or moral considerations. Hence, the “parasite” argument is not supported by logic and therefore carries no weight. But, you are still entitled to believe and feel however you wish on this issue, logical or not.
I support abortion for women, and I support financial abortion for men.
Co-signed. That’s what equality’s all about.
Financial abortion! Being legal? ?
No way in hell would that ever pass for the simple fact that both the feminist & the religious right would never ever let it be even considered let alone debate it.
That is sad. I’d actively vote against people who are against financial abortion, feminist, religious, whoever. Anyone against it is against equality for all in my books.
I’m sorry if this is TOTALLY naïve, but can you explain ‘financial abortion’? I don’t think I’ve ever heard that term before…?
Basically it gives men the option for a few months when they first learn a woman is pregnant to opt out of fatherhood. He can say “I do no wish to be a father” and he is free from ALL responsibility, but also it means he has no future say in that child’s life. I’d add a thing in law where should she choose to abort, he should pay for half of the abortion.
That way, both genders have a say in whether they want to be parents. Women can still be parents, or they can choose to abort, men can “abort” but the child can still be born and she cares for it herself.
As soon as the abortion rights movement stops being ANTI-choice (for men), I will take them at their word that they are a choice movement. Until then, it is no more than an ANTI-choice movement.
This is all fine, well and good—but I remain unmotivated to actively support expanded womens’ reproductive rights.
Why? Because men don’t have any reproductive rights at all. The best way to get men on-board with this is to actually give them a legal stake—reproductive rights to accompany their responibilities.
This is just how humans operate—we’re more likely to involved in the struggle if we have skin in the game. We’ll walk a mile in your shoes when you walk in mile in ours.
To expect men to discard this natural impulse is, well, dehumanizing.
About point 3, you do realize that none of those arguments actually support a woman’s right to choose because a woman can always choose to have the baby in which case the woman can put the child up for adoption or abuse the child (337 child fatalities perpetrated by the mother as opposed to 198 by the father). . Should we deny women the option of adoption to ensure that every child born is wanted? These arguments are only valid if you propose a parental suitability test before a woman is allowed to have a child (mandatory abortion, which is not choice). Should we require women to show how they’ll support the child before having one? Should we ban them from welfare for five years after the child’s birth? I seem to remember that when immigrants were petitioned, the sponsor had to show that they would not be burdens on the state for I believe was five years.
http://www.acf.hhs.gov/programs/cb/pubs/cm10/cm10.pdf#page=61
From what I remember mothers perpetrated about 50% more child abuse than fathers, but I’m still looking for the citation.
Way would I support women’s reproductive rights in this day & age if men’s reproductive rights are zillg & not supported by women?