Equal Choice

Dragontail_1 Some indication from the L.A. Times that the absurdities of "choice" are beginning to be understood, even by some of those who support it.

What the writer of the article, Meghan Daum,  is trying to figure out is – in these days of absolute equality in everything, for everybody – why should killing your unborn children be the exclusive purvue of women? Shouldn’t men have "choice" too? What is sauce for the goose…

She does an admirable job of beginning to lay out objections to this proposal, and finds none that hold water. All objections to the idea of a man having the right to terminate his child in utero (or at least legally terminate his parental responsibilities) also apply to women.

From the article:

"The way the law is now, a man who gets a woman pregnant is not only powerless to force her to terminate the pregnancy, he also has a complete legal obligation to support that child for at least 18 years.

In other words, although women are able to take control of their futures by choosing from at least a small range of options — abortion, adoption or keeping the child — a man can be forced to be a father to a child he never wanted and cannot financially support. I even know of cases in which the woman absolves the man of responsibility, only to have the courts demand payment anyway. That takes the notion of "choice" very far from anything resembling equality."

So the liberal dragon has again turned on itself and bitten it’s own tail. What is being suggested would require, not just spousal notification for an abortion, but the legal permission of any male sex partner, be he spouse, boyfriend or the guy you hooked up with one weekend.

I only hope the new thinking being manifested on the far left will result in a continued disillusionment about abortion and it’s supposed benefits. If not, and this warped logic is followed to it’s conclusion, we can expect more abortions, rather than fewer.

Thanks to Eric Scheske (The Daily Eudemon) for the link.

GET THE STORY.

13 thoughts on “Equal Choice”

  4. I’ve heard that in some juristictions, as long as the man offers to pay for an abortion he has no further financial liability. That makes the liberals just as mad.

  5. I have a feeling the courts are going to decide in favor of the father aborting his financial responsibilities. This will then drive more woman to abortion.

  6. It seems to me that there are only three even somewhat logical ways (albeit only one right way)to view the situation:
    1) The unborn child is a unique person created jointly by the parents, and is therefore endowed with an unalienable right to life which no one should be permitted to violate.
    2) The unborn child is not yet a person, but is the co-property of the father and mother, and the two must jointly agree before it can be destroyed or ownership can be transferred to another party.
    3) The unborn child is not yet a person, but is the exlusive property of the mother. She excepts all costs and risks associated with owning this unborn child and is free to make all decisions about its preservation or destruction until it becomes a person.
    Obviously, I believe answer #1 is the only correct answer, but it seems that the pro-abortion crowd wants to straddle the fence between 2 and 3, making the unborn child a piece of property owned by the mother, but still the financial responsibility of the father. The logical inconsistency is so blatent I can’t even believe abortion supporters really believe it. They choose to block out logical thinking because they want the license to do evil.
    Ironcially, when I’ve brought this up to abortion supporters, they seem to have the biggest problem with seeing the unborn child as a piece of property. At some level, they seem to know that neither model 2 nor model 3 offers a morally acceptable solution.
    Meghan Daum had better be careful. If she keeps trying to weigh her ideas against reason, she may yet realize there is no logical place for the pro-abortion position.

  8. Bill Q,
    Good call on the subject.
    I would however say that in addition to property of the mother the child seems to also be treated as an infection.
    After this rather depressing observation, can anyone suggest a good novena?

  9. “After this rather depressing observation, can anyone suggest a good novena?”
    John Paul II recently made the Italian woman who died carrying a child to term at risk of her own life a saint but I can’t ever seem to remember her name! (She lived in this century & I can see the picture of her, too. It’s maddening beinga a bear of very little brain!) Anyone know? She would be a great one to pray a novena to in a case like this, seems to me!

  11. You know, letting the man “abort” his financial responsibilities is right up there with “she can put the child up for adoption.” If she doesn’t want to know that there’s a child of her out there, alive, why is equality when he has no choice in the matter?
    Not to mention they can use the same argument about women’s lives as was used for abortion: men have been known to murder pregnant women rather than face unwanted paternity, and then the woman dies, too, as with the illegal abortions that are used in arguments.
    And they already have their hard cases: boys, victims of statutory rape, have been ordered to pay child support to the women who molested them and became pregnant as consequence. (There are many laws allowing parental rights to be terminated because the child was conceived in sexual assault. They ought to be universal — and applied.)

  12. In this particular case — St. Joachim and St. Joseph are the patron saints of fathers. And St. Augustine, who admitted that his son was unwanted, was nevertheless deeply grateful to his mistress because, when they separated, she left the boy with him.
    Let us pray that all fathers will acknowledge their fatherhood, and be allowed to acknowledge it.

  13. When I suggest to pro-choicers that a woman should have the right to marry the father of the child they turn out not to be so pro-choice after all.

Comments are closed.