Two adults have consenting sex one night. The result of this act is a pregnancy. One adult in the situation wants to keep the child. The other wants to abort it. The first adult offers to raise the child and never involve the other one. When Adult #1 is a woman, no one really has a problem with this. But when Adult #1 is a man, more than likely the fetus is aborted. What is wrong with that?
Before all the hate commenters and screamers who don't read the article get whipped up into a frenzy, this is not simply a pro-life article. This is an equal rights article. The point here is that if a woman is carrying a child (or fetus? I'm trying to stay neutral with the pro-life and pro-choice terminology here, so please bear with me), legally a man has no say in if it is kept until term or aborted. If it takes two people to reproduce and they are both consenting partners, shouldn't both people have equal say in if it is aborted?
A Woman's Right
Now, a woman's right to do with her body what she pleases is indeed an issue. A woman cannot and should not be forced to do something with her body against her will. It's her body, her right to do as she pleases. However, in the act of consenting to intercourse (trying to keep it semi clean here), does she not share some of her rights with the man? That may sound a bit weird, but think about this: If a woman does not consent to sex, if a man does have sex with her it is rape. He violated her rights and her body. If a woman does consent to sex, it is legal, and in a way the man is enveloped in her legal sphere of protection. Put another way, by consenting to do the deed, she is waiving her legal right to report him for rape. By allowing him the opportunity to impregnate her, shouldn't he be allowed a say in the event of a pregnancy?
A Different Perspective
If you find the previous argument a bit weak, allow me to try another one. When a woman gives birth to a child, she is allowed to sue for child support. The money she obtains is supposed to go for the well-being and raising of the child. Now, if a man is required to pay for a child that he did not want (and this is just an instance, not the rule), shouldn't he be allowed to care for a child the woman did not want? To me, that only seems right and fair. If a man is legally required to pay for a child, he should be legally allowed to care for a child. Is this so bad?
A Slippery Slope
By now some of you have found an important flaw to this argument. If a man can be allowed to save a fetus from abortion, then he would also have a say in if the fetus should be aborted. In other words, if a woman wants an abortion and a man can stop it to raise the child, then a woman who is carrying a child can be told by a court to abort because the man won the case. Now, I'm all for equal rights, but I'm also for saving money on abortions (call me pro-choice with pro-life leanings). Also, this goes against one of the first things stated here: A woman cannot and should not be forced to do something with her body against her will. And while forcing her to carry a child to term is a violation of that, isn't making her destroy the cluster of cells that could one day become a baby be a bigger violation of that?
The Unfortunate Impasse
As you can tell, no matter what someone is going to lose her. Either a woman loses the right to do with her body as she pleases, or a man loses his privilege of one day raising a child. Not the best scenario either way. Though the current arrangement is disproportionate as far as rights go, it tramples on the least rights. If you really look at it, all the man did was donate some of his genetic material, while the woman has a parasite growing in her for about nine and a half months. Because more work, effort, time, risk, and difficulty is involved with pregnancy, it could be argued that a woman does indeed have more say involving the fetus.
Rights, sex, and pregnancies are always complicated. When you put all of them into an arena, the outcome is always messy. The best thing to do is to avoid accidental pregnancies by using birth control and all that. A condom is cheaper than an abortion and more ethical anyway. So the best solution to this problem I can find is to avoid it all together. Can you think of something better?
Well, can you? Let me know! Leave a comment or contact me to share your thoughts!
Before all the hate commenters and screamers who don't read the article get whipped up into a frenzy, this is not simply a pro-life article. This is an equal rights article. The point here is that if a woman is carrying a child (or fetus? I'm trying to stay neutral with the pro-life and pro-choice terminology here, so please bear with me), legally a man has no say in if it is kept until term or aborted. If it takes two people to reproduce and they are both consenting partners, shouldn't both people have equal say in if it is aborted?
A Woman's Right
Now, a woman's right to do with her body what she pleases is indeed an issue. A woman cannot and should not be forced to do something with her body against her will. It's her body, her right to do as she pleases. However, in the act of consenting to intercourse (trying to keep it semi clean here), does she not share some of her rights with the man? That may sound a bit weird, but think about this: If a woman does not consent to sex, if a man does have sex with her it is rape. He violated her rights and her body. If a woman does consent to sex, it is legal, and in a way the man is enveloped in her legal sphere of protection. Put another way, by consenting to do the deed, she is waiving her legal right to report him for rape. By allowing him the opportunity to impregnate her, shouldn't he be allowed a say in the event of a pregnancy?
A Different Perspective
If you find the previous argument a bit weak, allow me to try another one. When a woman gives birth to a child, she is allowed to sue for child support. The money she obtains is supposed to go for the well-being and raising of the child. Now, if a man is required to pay for a child that he did not want (and this is just an instance, not the rule), shouldn't he be allowed to care for a child the woman did not want? To me, that only seems right and fair. If a man is legally required to pay for a child, he should be legally allowed to care for a child. Is this so bad?
A Slippery Slope
By now some of you have found an important flaw to this argument. If a man can be allowed to save a fetus from abortion, then he would also have a say in if the fetus should be aborted. In other words, if a woman wants an abortion and a man can stop it to raise the child, then a woman who is carrying a child can be told by a court to abort because the man won the case. Now, I'm all for equal rights, but I'm also for saving money on abortions (call me pro-choice with pro-life leanings). Also, this goes against one of the first things stated here: A woman cannot and should not be forced to do something with her body against her will. And while forcing her to carry a child to term is a violation of that, isn't making her destroy the cluster of cells that could one day become a baby be a bigger violation of that?
The Unfortunate Impasse
As you can tell, no matter what someone is going to lose her. Either a woman loses the right to do with her body as she pleases, or a man loses his privilege of one day raising a child. Not the best scenario either way. Though the current arrangement is disproportionate as far as rights go, it tramples on the least rights. If you really look at it, all the man did was donate some of his genetic material, while the woman has a parasite growing in her for about nine and a half months. Because more work, effort, time, risk, and difficulty is involved with pregnancy, it could be argued that a woman does indeed have more say involving the fetus.
Rights, sex, and pregnancies are always complicated. When you put all of them into an arena, the outcome is always messy. The best thing to do is to avoid accidental pregnancies by using birth control and all that. A condom is cheaper than an abortion and more ethical anyway. So the best solution to this problem I can find is to avoid it all together. Can you think of something better?
Well, can you? Let me know! Leave a comment or contact me to share your thoughts!
2 comments:
well said, i pretty much share the same views.
very well said, one day it will be in the courts if not already like everything else. the courts have to much power to control our lives now. I agree just dont do it.
Post a Comment