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

4/14/2001 | Sarah E. Hinlicky

[The Giant Apricots]

BTW I agree with Joathome...

Ugh.

[joathome]

Fathers were guaranteed custody because women had inferior standing in court. Period. Not because fathers were better at child rearing. Most fathers had much less to do with child rearing after the industrial age and fathers were absent from the home a great deal of the time. The industrial age was not good for the family in many respects.

Furthermore, in days past, it was mostly the wealthy who could afford to divorce. In general, they lived a lifestyle where those men spent even less time with their own children (and so did their mothers).

[The Giant Apricots]

I also believe that a large percentage of less than enthusiatic parents-to-be would in the end be good parents unlike the popularly promoted pessimistic view that unintended children are doomed to be unloved and abused. I believe the vast majority of bio-fathers would become good father-fathers. I also believe along with the societal expectation of equal obligations, the rate of unwanted conceptions would plumment.

And as there at least we agree...

Goodnight.

[joathome]

Glad you know some smart, athletic little ones. Yours? :)And even though they might be the smartest in the class or the most athletic on the team, nutritionally, they still did not get "the" optimum start in life.

[The Giant Apricots]

See #101...

Most fathers had much less to do with child rearing after the industrial age and fathers were absent from the home a great deal of the time. The industrial age was not good for the family in many respects.

My goodness, you said something accurate. Does the sense of newness tingle for you?

Have a good life. Au revior. Bye-bye.

[joathome]

Sorry, but the truth is the truth. Talk to any pro-life worker. Boyfriends and husbands are "the" deciding factor in abortions. Sorry, you guys don't want to admit that. Even in a society like ours, there's still a "fear" factor in being a single mother without support from the child's father.

[hocndoc]

It means that I was acting in place of your mom - a joke.

[rdb3]

The most rabid "pro-choicer" I know is a single, middle aged man. . .

Interesting. Let's see. I'm married and 30, so I don't qualify under your definition.

Thanks for playing. Buh-bye!

[Harrison Bergeron]

"We already know the father is a part of the decision to abort. "

This statement is routinely rubbed in the face of any man trying to hold women accountable for "choosing" to murder their babies in the womb. It's an easy pot shot, but it's based on anecdotes and hearsay. It fails to address the many men actively campaigning for veto power over abortion when it can be proven that their offspring are involved. It glosses over the huge numbers of women who present for abortions with a close female friend, or a liberal do-gooder sponsor.

Until the day when a man can legally veto the abortion of his own offspring, all the finger wagging in the world about men who support or encourage abortion is meaningless. Certainly the pro-death contingent comprises people of both sexes. But you demean and infantilize women by absolving them of personal responsibility in a world where they and only they can sign an abortion consent form.

[Lorianne]

But you demean and infantilize women by absolving them of personal responsibility in a world where they and only they can sign an abortion consent form.

I have never tried to absolve women of personal responsibility. However, many men (and they are right here on this thread) do attempt to absolve men of personal responsibility in pro-creation and its consequences. And this is not a new thing. This is a major reason WHY we have abortion.

It is a circle. Cause and effect. Action and reaction. That sort of thing. Who will break the cycle first?

[Harrison Bergeron]

I didn't catch any men dodging personal responsibility or damning the entire female sex in this thread.

To criticise feminism, a Marxist ideology, is not to criticise women. To voice protest against the institutionalization of this Marxist ideology in government, health care, and academia is not to protest against the so-called "fairer sex." To place culpability for an organized hate campaign against men and a holocaust against the unborn where it belongs - with radical feminist ideology - is not to absolve men of personal responsibility.

By interpreting criticism of feminism with criticism of women in general, you are spinning your wheels in one of the oldest mud filled potholes on the highway to understanding. It's what the rad fems depend on, it's what they hide behind to make themselves out as victims.

I disagree with you on a lot of points, but agree with you more than not. You argue politely, you are reasonable. Go with that strength. Don't take disagreement as an attack against women.

[Lorianne]

I consider myself a radical pro-Life, pro-Family, pro-Child, pro-Marriage, pro-Woman feminist. I don't see these as contradictions in terms and neither do a lot of other women. Radicalism and feminism have many different twists and turns ... and trajectories, not just one. It may turn out that pro-Choice feminists will be sorry they weren't careful what they asked for in advocating the political empowerment of women. :-) Stay tuned.

[Lorianne]

The Founders of Women's Movement All Opposed Abortion ____ http://www.priestsforlife.org/articles/femquotes.html

Feminisim and Non-violence Studies Association ____ http://www.fnsa.org/

Listing of Pro-Life Women's Organizations ___ http://www.sehlat.com/lifelink/ffl/plgroups.html

Feminists For Life ___ http://www.feministsforlife.org/

[The Giant Apricots]

This statement is routinely rubbed in the face of any man trying to hold women accountable for "choosing" to murder their babies in the womb. It's an easy pot shot, but it's based on anecdotes and hearsay. It fails to address the many men actively campaigning for veto power over abortion when it can be proven that their offspring are involved. It glosses over the huge numbers of women who present for abortions with a close female friend, or a liberal do-gooder sponsor. Until the day when a man can legally veto the abortion of his own offspring, all the finger wagging in the world about men who support or encourage abortion is meaningless. Certainly the pro-death contingent comprises people of both sexes. But you demean and infantilize women by absolving them of personal responsibility in a world where they and only they can sign an abortion consent form.

Exactly.

[The Giant Apricots]

I'm aware of Feminists For Life, and I'm glad that they exist. Interestingly, their site is not man-hating like pro-abort feminist websites, illustrating the connection between being pro-abort and being anti-male. Like I said before, ideologically, abortion is patricide.

That noted, "Feminists For Life" is internally incongruent: the term feminist is defined by the majority of those who lay claim to it, and the majority of those who lay claim to it are frothing-at-the-mouth pro-abort.

I recognize that Louisa May Alcott, Elizabeth Cady Stanton, and the rest of the 19th-century suffragettes were pro-life.

But times have changed.

[Harrison Bergeron]

Your referencing pro-life women's organizations missed the point I was trying to make about my opposition to "feminism." I understand that there are huge numbers of pro-life women. The last poll I recall seeing had women at about 51% solid pro-life. There are good conservative women's groups out there - some calling themselves "equity-feminists" - fighting the good fight against man-hating, boy destroying, baby killing gender-feminists. The Independent Women's Forum is one of them. They take serious issue with anyone who says that the answer to the problems created by leftist feminists is more leftist feminist social welfare policies.