I was going to post the following comments to Casper's piece about Abortion Rights for Men in the comment section of Casper's post. But then I got to thinking, I have the password to this blog and can post to it freely (Something Casper may be rethinking in the near future). So, here you go, a post in response to comments from Casper's post
about my dialogue with Dad29
from a previous post
written by me
Wow. That's a lot of background.
Alright, here are my somewhat thought out feelings on this.
This is a challenging explanation since so many people can not step outside of a world where women's actions and bodies aren't governed by someone else, (yes I'm being sarcastic) but I'll give it my best shot.
I understand that what I'm about to say is an opinion that Jenna
does not like very much. I'm okay with that. See below:
I look at it like this: A man has a right to his DNA (by way of his sperm in this case). Once he agrees to let that sperm leave his body, his rights to it are somewhat willingly
sacrificed. This is only because he enters into this situation with the full knowledge
that if the girl gets pregnant, the decision to keep the child is, for all intents and purposes, out of his hands. This does not come as a surpise to him later.
He knows, in this country, the "contract" that is in place: He does not have the right to tell the woman what to do with her uterus or anything inside of it. So, in choosing to have sex in the first place, he is entering into this agreement.
Given that he has this knowledge, and the knowledge that if the girl should get pregnant, then in my opinion, he has agreed to the outcome of child support, should the girl decide to keep the baby.
To me it's a type of social contract. On a daily basis we all "agree" to hundreds of things by chosing to be citizens of this city, this state, even this country. Which is to say, while I may not want certain results, I know that by doing certain things I will get those results. Hence, if I do those certain things, I and only I am culpable for the results. If I do not like the possible outcome enough
, then it is worth it to me to refrain from the action in question.
And what's more, I think the man gets off pretty easy ONLY
having to pay child support. It is the woman who is left with the bigger issues: the raising of the child, the legal consequences of that child's actions, day care, schooling etc. and you can slap me silly if you're going to argue that the man has to pay MORE money via child support than the woman ultimately will over the course of that child's life. The men who leave get off easy.
Now on to the bigger point, and I touched on this before.
It is because of the unique situation present in a pregnancy, where one of the two parties involved faces the real physical consquence, that one of the two parties involved has the bigger claim on what to do.
The reality is this, for a child to be produced, the only physical requirment involved from a man is an orgasm. Obviously, it is not so in the case of the woman. The entire process takes place inside a woman's body, and as such, the bigger responsibility lies with the woman on whether or not her body will continue the process.
Is it fair? No. Is it the way it is? Yes. If you're that distraught about it, take it up with God.
Denying these basic physical entitlements to the process of pregnancy is what produces ridiculous pleas for economic and abortion rights for men. Which is to say, the day a man has to take a pregnancy test is the day I'll feel sorry for his "lack of rights" on the abortion front.
I'd like to state that most of the above comments were just my answer to the question that Casper put before me. The reality is, I do not support abortion unless it is for one of three situations I will outline below.
I think that when two people decide to engage in intercourse they are agreeing to the possible outcome of having a child. However, it is only when two people agree to have sex that any type of social contract is in place. In the case of rape and incest, two people did not agree and so on the one end, the woman can not be held responsible for upholding a social contract she never agreed to enter. This is why I believe she should have the right to abort the fetus.
To be sure, let's take a look at the flip side: The day the government forces a man to provide his sperm to impregnate a woman.
I think any man would have issues with that. I think they'd say: Only I can decide who gets to use my DNA to create a child! The government can't take my sperm and impregnate someone without my consent!
You'd be right and I'd agree with you. That would be a major violation by the government.
This is why I am in favor of three kinds of abortions: 1) When the woman's life is in jeapordy due to the pregnancy 2) When the woman was impregnated through rape 3) When the woman was impregnated through incest.
Because, if a woman is raped and impregnated, but can't get an abortion, it is the day the government forces
her to provide her DNA to reproduce. Just like I think it would be wrong to force a man to give his sperm to reproduce, I think it is wrong to force a woman to use her body to reproduce.
I cannot stress this fact enough:
That'd be the government telling her
she had to accept someone else's DNA into her BODY, allow it to combine with her DNA, and then create a child in HER WOMB. In addition, I may be going out on a limb here, but I think that would also affect 9 months of her life, her ability to work and oh I'm just taking a guess here, but her family life may be disrupted, too. I mean beyond being raped and dealing with the emotional side affects and whatever diseases she may have picked up from it.
But wow. Isn't that freaky? Government ordered pregnancy
. Kinda frightening when you really think about it.
Oh wait a minute. You guys support that. My bad. I'm just a conservative and against big government.