ABSOLUTE POWER: What "Pro-Choice" Is Really All About: Answers, Abortion, Fatherhood

4/14/2001 | Sarah E. Hinlicky

[Khepera]

That contract is the basis for all civilized societies.

Yes and that contract is called marriage and it is made the moment a man and a woman begin intercourse. No papers or wedding vows or official sanction needed. The bible told me so. I believe it is 100% true and correct. It also describes the punishment for killing a baby in the womb as death. I believe the words "An eye for an eye and a tooth for a tooth" are recited at that point.. I also believe that the bible grants men as the head of the family with final say as to the role of the woman in the family. The man takes full responsibility for the families welfare and the decisions made. God granted man control over the lives of his wife and children.

As a man I would not give my responsibilities over to a woman since she has enough to deal with already taking care of the domestic chores. Any woman who is being treated like a man should be very angry as she is being taken advantage of and being abused.

[The Giant Apricots]

women and men enough to say to them: "If you co-conceive you will not be treated unequally and unfairly relative to the other co-conceivor." On the other hand, if we tell men who pro-create they are worth less than women who pro-create, the result will be abortion.

I added men to the first line, and switched the places of women and men in the second, just to illustrate that it needs to go both ways. Not in favor of guys over gals, or in favor of gals overguys, but both ways equally.

The term "single mother" is too often employed as meaning without-and-not-needing the father of the baby. Thus it's danger to fatherhood and thus to society.

At the risk of being complex, it should be noted that what the feminist idealogues want a full matriarchy, in which fathers have no rights whatever, and mothers automatically have sole custody and full control. Via the welfare state and the divorce courts, they are getting exactly that.

Abortion itself, to the ideological drivers of the feminist movement, is lesboedipal: an ideologically-lesbian version of the Oedipal Complex.

Abortion is patricide. As biological fatherhood is the ultimate realization of manhood, aborting a father's baby is the nuclear bomb in the war on fatherhood.

And the studies claiming that 85% of biological fathers participated in the abortion decision and favored it are false. Many such studies were done at abortion clinics, which for obvious reasons, massively taints the sample.

They are proferred as a pre-emptive salvo against their greatest danger: the prospect of men standing up for fatherhood en masse. Which will happen sooner rather than later, and is the best thing that ever could happen to this nation.

Further, they are profferred by pro-lifers who, as HB noted, don't want the killing of prenatal infants, but have an ingrained problem with attributing that killing to the only group legally empowered to make it happen.

So, they look around for a man to blame---the father of the baby, or the male abortionist.

Now, under the USSC decisions Danforth (76) and Casey (92), the father of the baby cannot legally save it. That he cannot is criminal beyond comprehension, and a horror unparalleled in human history.

Thus, until Roe/Danforth/Casey are overturned, only the mother of the baby can save it, and thus must accept responsibility when failing to do so. If she so fails, the blood is on her hands.

All that said, this social image of psuedoparthogenesis, referring to enobled single mothers as though they immaculately conceived, and demonizing unwed fathers even while marginalizing them, HAS to change. It's wrecking families, and society, in unprecedented ways.

Solutions?

An end to no-fault divorce

Covenant marriage laws

A judiciary-binding presumption of joint residential custody in all divorce and out of wedlock cases, rebuttable only when one parent is unfit.

An increase focus on positive images of fatherhood.

An end to dis-incentives for marriage: the "no man in the house" welfare rule, which Tommy Thompson and Wade Horn are working on, and an end to the marriage penalty, which President Bush wants

Couples counseling at Crisis Pregnancy Centers and Churches

[Lorianne]

So you are most interested in laying the blame for everything on women? That is the primary goal?

Oddly enough, you seem to think men can save the day by coming forth and wanting their kids. Yet you refuse to allow that men not wanting their kids is a factor on the flip side. This is blatantly biased with the goal not to eliminate abortion but to demonize women and to wash men's hands of abortion entirely. If that is the goal, I suspect you'll eventually reach it, but it won't end abortion.

There are twice as many abortion referrals and inquiries than there are abortions. Some who make appointments don't show up on the appointed day. This does not even take into account those who never call or inquire about abortion at all. This means, most people do not choose abortion, a fact we should be happy about and we should find out why this is the case. A great many of these "choices" not to abort are because the baby had two advocates, not just one or none. This signifies that the father (as well as other family members) is an intergral part of the decision NOT TO abort. We already know the father is a part of the decision to abort. It makes logical sense that he is equally influential in a decision not to abort. We should be finding out what factors actually play into an abortion or non-abortion decision. Study after study has shown that many women do not want to abort and feel pressured to do so either by the father, family members or by the prospect of unequal societal demands on her relative to men who pro-create.

In addition, abortion on demand as the law of the land could not stand were it not for the political support of both men and women. Support by only one side, especially considering that many women are anti-abortion, is not a rational conclusion.

In addition, we are all complicit in abortion by creating a society which devalues women, devalues motherhood (in particular by demonizing the very women who do not abort), devalues parenthood in general, devalues living responsible lives and promotes a double standard for personal accountability for ones actions. It is plain and clear that accountability in pro-creation is one-sided and unfair. We need to strike the root of the problems, not flail away at the branches. Making out the past to be all rosy is also not a solution. Obviously many women felt they had no stake in the status quo, which included being relegated to a lower status in society when they pro-created relative to men who pro-created. Obviously this system was rejected by women, and unfortunately instead of demanding equal status reqardless of pro-creative status, many women chose to fight instead for the right to render themselves un-pregnant in order to claim equal status. This was an extremely shortsighted, cowardly and counterproductive strategy. However the way to correct it is the same as it was before ... women must demand equal status regardless of her pro-creative status. Abortion masks the underlying problem. Abortion only temporarily sweeps that inequality under the rug.

In my opinion a truly radical feminist would not advocate abortion ever, but rather demand equal status and equal obligations between men who pro-create and women who pro-create.

[IronJack]

Now, under the USSC decisions Danforth (76) and Casey (92), the father of the baby cannot legally save it. That he cannot is criminal beyond comprehension, and a horror unparalleled in human history.

That he would ever have to bespeaks a moral bankruptcy that mocks even instinct.

[The Giant Apricots]

It is plain and clear that accountability in pro-creation is one-sided and unfair. We need to strike the root of the problems, not flail away at the branches.

Mayhaps we define accountability diiferently. I would say that fathers have the worst of it once the child is born: their joint custody rights are not vaidated, and no one offers them the equal opportunity to be a primary caregiver to the children they sired. If you believe that things are "one-sided and unfair" in such a way as would in your view disadvantage women, I'd be interested to hear your extrapolation of that contention.

...which included being relegated to a lower status in society when they pro-created relative to men who pro-created.

How so "a lower status"? Having the opportunity to stay home all day and be a primary parent while your spouse pays all your bills is an immensely advantaged position not traditionally offered to men.

... women must demand equal status regardless of her pro-creative status. Abortion masks the underlying problem. Abortion only temporarily sweeps that inequality under the rug.

What would you call "equal status" in contrast to "inequality"?

[Cold Heat]

I do believe that this article is the first that I have seen that is right on the money!

[Lorianne]

Mayhaps we define accountability diiferently. I would say that fathers have the worst of it once the child is born: their joint custody rights are not vaidated, and no one offers them the equal opportunity to be a primary caregiver to the children they sired. If you believe that things are "one-sided and unfair" in such a way as would in your view disadvantage women, I'd be interested to hear your extrapolation of that contention.

I am all for fathers having equal rights and obligations in parenting. I've also already mentioned I favor a paternal veto on abortion. There ARE inequities to fathers that need to be rectified in our divorce/custody laws. But I don't think this has much to do with abortion because by and large IMO women don't abort in order to prevent fathers from parenting.

Lorianne: ...which included being relegated to a lower status in society when they pro-created relative to men who pro-created.

How so "a lower status"?

Oh come now. You know very well the history of disparity between women who have pro-created out of wedlock and men who have. There is a long long history of inequitable treatement, punishment, retribution, etc ... even death... against women who have pro-created while the man is rarely even reprimanded. This is the tradition that lead to infanticide in earlier times. And it still goes on today in other forms... you hear it all over these threads where men demonize women (in the vilest terms) when in fact the woman did exactly the same thing the man did, she had sex. There are plenty of people who want to punish the woman for having sex but not the man. Pregnancy gives them all the ammunition they need. To them "pregnancy" proves that the woman is "at fault" though this makes no logical sense, they don't care. Irrational scapegoating becomes the major goal. Is it any wonder many women will render themselves un-pregnant in the face of such harsh criticism of "pregnancy" (as opposed to equal criticism between the parties)?

In additon, girls/women who are parents are "expected" to sacrifice education, career, etc. to a degree unequal to the expectaion on fathers. If this is by mutual agreement I see no problem, but the consensus, especially in OOW conception situations is that the female has screwed up her life and the male hasn't; she will pay, he will not. And society strictly enforces that as code and makes sure it will happen. Is it any surprise many women abort rather than submit to this harrassment? What do you think the "right to privacy" was all about?

Having the opportunity to stay home all day and be a primary parent while your spouse pays all your bills is an immensely advantaged position not traditionally offered to men.

What a rosy picture you paint! Again if this is by mutual agreement fine, I agree. If so, the employed spouse is not "paying all the bills" of the other spouse .... they are dividing up the tasks at hand by mutual agreement. Your wordage devalues the stay at home parent by casting them in the role of supplicant for their room and board and cushy "lifestyle" when in fact most stay at home parents work as much as the employed parent does.

Lorianne: ... women must demand equal status regardless of her pro-creative status. Abortion masks the underlying problem. Abortion only temporarily sweeps that inequality under the rug.

What would you call "equal status" in contrast to "inequality"?

When a child is concieved, right away there is an expectation by men, women, society .... that both parents will share equally in the responsibility and obligations to the child-to-be and both will share equally in any sacrifices which may have to be made if the conception occurs at a less than opportune time. That means if there is a conception to teenage parents, both the boy and the girl will have 50/50 accountability and responsibility to the child. That would be "equal status". Unequal status is the expectation that it is the girl/woman who must lose-out (which is what we preach to young girls), who must be "punished" for the act TWO people took part in. Telling girls/women they WILL be unequally held accountable in unintended/unwanted conception situations and that they MUST accept this unequal treatement as their fate ... is a major reason why we have abortion.

[winodog]

I have the same problem you do. I see it as the womans fault when she gets pregnant, not the mans.

[Lorianne]

windog: I see it as the womans fault when she gets pregnant, not the mans

Translation: I believe men have the God-given right to 100% risk-free, consequence-free sex.

[joathome]

"It would probably never happen, but I would love to see the results of a survey of women who had abortions that asked who was the stronger advocate of their abortion; the man or the woman."

Talk to any alternative pregnancy center worker, and they will tell you that the number one thing that will stop an abortion is a supportive husband or boyfriend. Number two is supportive parents. Most women and girls who get abortions are not feminazis, but women looking for a way out of an ill timed predicament that will drastically alter their lives. Unfortunately, that "way out" costs a life.

[joathome]

"Yet, I NEVER impregnated one woman in my life. Not one."

You don't REALLY know that, do you? NO, YOU DON'T! Especially considering that so many men on this board consider women nothing but cheap, lying tarts. :(

[joathome]

"And the studies claiming that 85% of biological fathers participated in the abortion decision and favored it are false. Many such studies were done at abortion clinics, which for obvious reasons, massively taints the sample"

Sorry, but that is correct. Ask any pro-life clinic worker what's the number one thing standing between a woman and a decision to abort, and that worker will tell you that it is a supportive husband or father. Supportive parents also help, in the case of young teen girls.

[joathome]

"How so "a lower status"? Having the opportunity to stay home all day and be a primary parent while your spouse pays all your bills is an immensely advantaged position not traditionally offered to men."

Really? My husband is a superb father who spends virtually all of his free time with his children, but he does not consider my staying home an "immensely advantaged position." Rather, he views it as God's plan for our family. If God had intended him to care for infants in the home instead of me, he would have given him breasts to nurse, for starters. :)

[rdb3]

You don't REALLY know that, do you?

Pray tell, what evidence do you have that suggests that I truly don't know this to be the case?

[joathome]

Just pointing out that any woman could have gotten pregnant and had an abortion without telling you, or were all those women pro-lifers?

It's a misconception to think you would have been told, especially since you made it clear in your posts that these were not all "committed" relationships.

[hocndoc]

Good job.

[rdb3]

Just as I thought, no evidence. Just speculation to prove some type of irrelevant point.

[hocndoc]

Can you give me a diagnosis that would fit your scenario? I don't know of one that is not an immediate life-endangering emergency. And none of them require the death of the child as a condition.

[The Giant Apricots]

When a child is concieved, right away there is an expectation by men, women, society .... that both parents will share equally in the responsibility and obligations to the child-to-be and both will share equally in any sacrifices which may have to be made if the conception occurs at a less than opportune time. That means if there is a conception to teenage parents, both the boy and the girl will have 50/50 accountability and responsibility to the child. That would be "equal status".

I agree with all of that 100%. Perhaps we're not as far apart as either of us have perceived to this point. Still...

Unequal status is the expectation that it is the girl/woman who must lose-out (which is what we preach to young girls), who must be "punished" for the act TWO people took part in. Telling girls/women they WILL be unequally held accountable in unintended/unwanted conception situations and that they MUST accept this unequal treatement as their fate ...

A) You see the current expectation that the mother will sacrifice career and education to be the primary caregiver as unfair to her. O.K. I'd love to see a societal expectation that fathers will spend equal time---and be OBLIGATED to spend equal time---with all children they father. Equal responsibility.

B) In turn, I see the current expectation that the father will be just a bankbook, working to support the child without the legally right to be an equal caregiver/parent. So, similarly to the above, I'd love to see a societal expectation that mothers be OBLIGATED to provide the same percentage of their income to supporting child/family as the father is.

So how would you suggest the imbalances in A and B be rectified simultaneously?

[The Giant Apricots]

Thank you very much...