Good evening again everyone.
With the passing of remarkably strict laws in the United States regarding abortion, we have seen quite the outcry from the left. Within that outcry, we have heard the term 'reproductive rights.' That is interesting. What does it mean.
According to Merriam-Webster, reproductive rights means "a woman's right to choose whether or not she will have a baby."
Wow! I try not to have the reaction I am having on this. Still, I will ask the question: do men have reproductive rights? Let's be careful with the answer on this.
I get it. I really get it. No matter how loving and utterly awesome a father-to-be is, the bottom line is that the mother's body is far more involved in the pregnancy than the father's. I really get it.
Still, I am left with a question. Does Merriam-Webster's definition of reproductive rights relegate men to the role of stud? Do fathers have a part in the discussions? Is it an equal part? Is it a part only as long as mothers allow it to be? Are fathers there for the first few minutes, and then expected to show up 40 weeks later with groceries and diapers?
Do fathers have reproductive rights?
Let's complicate this. Ultimately, we all know that this question is about abortion. Looking at Merriam-Webster's definition, anyone has the right to choose whether or not to bring children into this world, biological challenges notwithstanding. No one in society is making any attempt to remove that right.
This abortion question though...it is difficult. Why? Putting aside other things that I have written about this, society has accepted that rape victims may wish to abort a pregnancy, and that the possibility should be there. So here is the question: if the rapist wishes to abort the pregnancy, but the victim does not, should the pregnancy be allowed to continue? Sure, why not. Gotcha. Look back over the question. I was very careful to avoid gender pronouns. What if the rape victim is a father who wants to keep his offspring? What if the rapist is a woman who does not wish to carry this pregnancy to term? Does a man forced into being a father have no paternal rights due to Merriam-Webster's reproductive rights?
Before you jump at me, take note of this article from Scientific American: https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/sexual-victimization-by-women-is-more-common-than-previously-known/.
Read the third paragraph of the article. "Men were equally likely to experience non-consensual sex." It happens, and pregnancy happens as a result. There was even a case in the United States in which a judge went so far as to require a rape victim to pay child support to the rapist mother.
Bottom line? Less than two percent of abortions are about rape. Like abortions in the third trimester, the societal uproar over this is much ado about next to nothing. This blog entry though has been on my mind for a while. Again, I get it that women's bodies are far more involved in this endeavour. But it is simply wrong to limit discussions of reproductive rights to women.
My friends, I really would like some input from you on this entry and the last entry. I may end up pulling the entries down. I really do not know. As mentioned, something is missing in my reasoning. Help me figure out what it is.
Thank you all.
R/SCG
I can see both sides of your well written article. In some instances (i.e. rape or medical issues) the woman who is carrying the child of her rapist should be allowed to abort should she want to. The rapist does not have the right to stop it. He committed a crime and therefore lost his right to choose. Between a spouse, if the woman becomes pregnant a discussion has to take place if she or he doesn't want a child, but ultimately since the woman is carrying the child in her body, and going through the labour it's stands to reason that she has more of a say than he does unless he somehow magically gives birth himself. Where I have an issue, is that these anti-abortion laws are passed predominantly by men who don't have to carry a baby to term that he doesn't want, they don't take into account special circumstances, and they just spout rubbish for passing the law that puts society back 50 years. Look, the way I see it, a woman should have a right to decide what happens to her body. No male political leader has the right to decide that for her. If someone is pregnant and doesn't want to be, they will get an abortion one way or the other. At least if abortions are legal, a woman will get it done safely in a hospital or clinic. If not, she will get it done in some less than sterile back room and possibly get an infection or die in the process. I hate to see politicians putting us back in time instead of moving forward.
ReplyDelete