I recently stumbled upon a Facebook conversation that centered around abortion and free choice. Of course, being I'm not friends with the person who initiated this conversation, I was unable to add my two cents - which is probably a good thing. It wasn't just the arguments being stated in favor of pro choice that got under my skin that prompted me to write this post. It was more so an argument posed by a male on the subject that intrigued me and got me thinking.
First, allow me to say that in general, I am against abortion. I could never have one. And I am glad when others choose a different option. I don't think I would ever look down on someone who did have one, though. Unless, of course, this person has already had a few and is using abortion as a means of birth control. There are better options available than to kill an unborn baby. In the case of rape, or when it could be a danger to a mother's health to carry a baby, I am more sympathetic to the cause.
This said...
One of the arguments for why a woman should be able to choose abortion basically boiled down to a woman might want to abort an unwanted pregnancy because it will change the way her body looks, and/or it could be bad for her reputation to carry it full term. Seriously? Abortion is ok to prevent a woman from getting stretch marks? Abortion is ok to keep a woman from looking like a slut? I'm sorry, but I don't think so. Maybe in a 3rd world country where the unwed mother would be shot if they found out she was pregnant - than it falls under "danger to a mother's health" - but in the US? You spread your legs, deal with the consequences. And I'm sorry if that pisses anyone off. Well, I'm not really that sorry. But anyway. I have a great deal of respect and admiration for those who do not choose the "easy" way of having an abortion. Adoption is a very viable option if you're not prepared to be a parent and oops, you've got a bun in the oven. It takes a lot more courage to risk stretch marks and an injured reputation by choosing to carry the baby than it does to simply get rid of the "mistake." Babies are not mistakes.
But, I didn't mean to get on a rampage about that part of the topic. Now, onto the part that intrigued me...
One man posed the question, and this is summarized from what was actually said... why is it a woman's right to determine a man's fate? A woman gets to decide if she will carry the baby or kill it. The man gets no say in this. It's a woman's right. However, should the woman choose to carry/keep the baby... the man must pay child support. The man gets no say in this. And should the woman choose abortion - what if the man wanted a child? Again, the man gets no say in this. If the egg donor has the rights to determine if the child lives or dies, should the sperm donor not have the same right? Or, at least have the right to determine if he pays for the child or not? How can we allow one gender to ignore their responsibility, but not the other?
He stated that IF abortion is not murder, but is in fact simply a form of birth control... the woman gets to choose whether or not she wants to be a parent. Should the man not have the same right of choice? Shouldn't he get to choose whether or not to be a parent? If the woman decides to continue with the pregnancy, and thus become a mother, the male should, at that point, get to decide if he will support the child and thus become a father.
This is an interesting stance on the subject. Of course, most people can't see beyond the "is it murder or not" question. But if we treat it simply as birth control, and therefore not a baby while still in the woman's body, then both parents should have equal rights in determining whether or not they want to be a parent.
Basically speaking, abortion should not pertain only to the egg donor. Both donors should have rights in determining whether or not to be parents, so long as both had the right to choose whether or not to have sex.
No comments:
Post a Comment