You ready for a piece that pinpoints the lunacy of our legal system when it comes to parenthood and abortion?
A column in Mens News Daily called “Time to Abort Fatherhood at Will” is an in-your-face read with some great points about the inequality of the law.
So many of the author Paul Elam’s points are so dead on I just had to share it with you. It begins:
Abortion is baby killing.
Only in the reality averse feminism-is-about-equality mindset is abortion anything but the termination of a human life.
Technically speaking it can’t accurately be called murder, since technically speaking, it’s legal. The baby is no less dead, though, for that paltry distinction. But since it is a lawful action in which men are completely voiceless, and looks to remain that way, there is only one appropriate response.
It’s time for men to be allowed to legally abort fatherhood during the same period of time a woman is allowed to do the same by visiting her local clinic.
It’s time for a man to have the unfettered social and legal backing to look at a woman whom he has just impregnated directly in the eye and say, “See ya, wouldn’t want to be ya,” and to stroll off whistling a tune, to enjoy less inconvenient relationships, without his wallet being any lighter or his conscious any heavier.
If you are waiting for a punch line or some well placed literary device to put this into a different perspective…don’t. There isn’t one coming, nor should there be.
It’s impossible not to see what Elam is saying.
A constitutional right to evade all the responsibilities of parenthood currently only belongs to half the population, according to current law. Men have no rights over the unborn but are on the hook for all the responsibility should the woman give birth.
Elam points out that since there is a discrepancy, men should also be able to renounce parenthood as well, consequences be damned. I would argue that the discrepancy should call all of us to accept responsibility for the new life. Rather than mirror the woman’s bad behavior we should hope to change the culture so that less women find themselves in crisis pregnancies and less women abort their children.
But his point that as long as the “right” to abortion exists, is it fair to only have half the people able to access those rights?
Elam doesn’t think so:
In the spirit of calling abortion what it is, let us examine the motives behind the decision to get one with the same unblinking candor. Abortion, in most circumstances, is not a decision to avoid pregnancy, but to avoid motherhood. In fact, the term reproductive rights is a misnomer; a postmodern guise to cover the real issue. It isn’t “My body, my choice,” it’s “My lifestyle, my choice,” even if it means killing a baby because it gets in the way.
In many, many cases, it is about choosing personal freedom and a social life over life itself. But what the heck, it’s 2010 people, and grrls gots to have choices.
But with that in mind, you will have to excuse me if I yawn at any outrage over the idea of a man being given the same options, especially given that men have already been aborted from the decision making process. That suits a lot of people and any idea of changing things will anger some as well.
The traditional male, from atop his white stallion, will scoff at the very idea of men’s choice, of course. His indignation will be echoed by his twin sister, the gender feminist. Somewhere, in the midst of sorting out responsibilities, both will invoke the “your baby, you pay,” catch-all, one of many shared attitudes that make these ostensibly strange bedfellows more like two peas in a pod when all is said and done.
But in their rush to ensure that she is given the role of sole arbiter, they will both adamantly deny the major flaw in their position.
There is no reason at all to use the expression “your baby,” when talking to any man in western culture, any more. Because when push comes to shove, as it often does, it is not his baby, it is hers.
He is a father with her permission and approval only. His genes, in the form of another human being, have become her property, lending new meaning to wearing the pants in the family, phonetically speaking.
Elam points out that he understands that the ability to renounce fatherhood will lead to many problems for children throughout the country.
And at last some will be asking “Hey, what about the baby? What about what is best for the baby? Are we really supposed to support men for the right to walk away from the children they create and shun all responsibility?”
The answer is yes. First, equality, for those that can stomach it, is a cruel master. Second, if ‘What about the baby?’ isn’t allowed to be asked before one is cut out of a woman’s womb and thrown into a garbage bin, then anyone asking the question now should just shut up.
We don’t care about what is best for children in this culture, we care about what is best for women or whatever they happen to say is best for them at the moment. So more than anything else, it is about giving women their way. In pursuing that we regularly kill children or rip their lives to shreds in a hundred other ways. And people want to ignore all that and start drawing lines here?
Please.
Rather than both mother and father avoiding responsibility I’d hope that mothers and fathers would always be asking “What about the baby?” But clearly the current legal framework is simply patched up feminism and needs to be changed.
You can read the entire thing at Men’s News Daily.
May 19, 2010 at 6:25 am
Very good post. Thanks!
May 19, 2010 at 7:09 am
You said, "Men have no rights over the unborn but are on the hook for all the responsibility should the woman give birth."
For all the responsibility? They are on the hook to send a check every month. She is on the hook for being pregnant, labor, and then for either being with that child or finding someone responsible for being with that child, every moment, 24/7/365 for at least 5 years, and then most of the time for years to come. She is on the hook for sleepless nights, thousands of diaper changes, probably a number of bouts of waiting hours in the ER, notes to and from teachers, teachers conferences, shots, sports physicals, cupcakes for school birthday parties, halloween costumes, driving lessons…etc etc etc And all while also working.
You all know I am against abortion and for marriage, I don't hate men, and am not saying that any of this justifies abortion.
But your statement was preposterous when you consider the common situation of absent father grudgingly sending a check, vs present single mother working and raising a child. Note I said common situation, not universal situation. Some Dads are raising kids. Some are very involved. Some want to be more involved and are blocked by the mothers… some for good reasons and some for no reason or terrible reasons. But he CAN walk away, and the state will say to him only, Send a check for this much every month. She is pregnant for nine months, throws up, maybe daily for months, gets stretch marks, heartburn, etc, goes through labor, and has a baby put in her arms. She could sign it over for adoption, after much counseling, and usually with a lot of pain because of natural emotional bonds.
If she gave birth outside the hospital, put down the baby and just walked away, or did this once she left the hospital she might go to jail for negligent homicide if the baby died. Just walking away really isn't an option for the mother once the baby is born.
The situation is by nature uneven; biologically the woman has much more responsibility than the father. Society evens this out a bit, just a bit, by asking for that child support check.
This whole post is nasty, disgusting, and lowlife. Give me the fathers who say they want to be able to block the abortion of their child. I'll side with those fathers. But not with these guys.
Susan Peterson
May 19, 2010 at 10:09 am
@ eulogos: I don't think that the post is "nasty, disgusting, and lowlife". It's just a thought experiment on ground of current realities. And in that not to be condemned but to considered in rethinking these realities.
To overdo it even more I would give the father not only the right to abort fatherhood but even the baby itself. A 'Pro Choice of Number of Descendants Running Around'.
May 19, 2010 at 11:33 am
I lost our children to an adulterous wife who continues her adultery with the blessing of the Catholic Church. This post is no new ground. Men are simply sperm donors, who become indentured servant/banks, for their adulterous(often not always) wives BUT this is with the full consent and support of the Catholic Clergy all the way up THROUGH the Holy Father, who talks a bit of a case but does NOTHING AT ALL for those who BEG for his intervention. Much reform is needed but this WILL NOT BE because men foolishly continue to support this Church that needs to be taught a financial lesson, while it supports divorce/remarriage and unrepentant adultery.
May 19, 2010 at 1:11 pm
Gosh Anonymous, I'm glad you're not bitter.
May 19, 2010 at 1:44 pm
This post isn't actually supporting the idea that men don't have to support their children. The point is that our culture has gotten so screwy that this is what we've come to, and the article raises important questions that point to the truth. Women have no more rights to abort their children than men do, except that, in our stupid cultural view, some people seem to think otherwise. Really, if you see the forest for the trees, this article is actually quite pro-life: it shows that abortion is wrong because it kills a person and if some people can legally chose to kill a baby, then either everyone should be allowed (men and women)—which is total bunk, or we need to rethink our cultural view of "reproductive choice".
May 19, 2010 at 2:12 pm
eulogos, Elizabeth Anne and Christian are right. This isn't advocating for this to actually happen but pointing out the flaws in the "equality" that feminism is trying to force on the world. In reality, there is no equality. Yes, men are currently allowed to leave their children and force the mother to take care of all the responsibility of actually raising the child but they are forced to pay a good portion of that child care (if not all if the mother doesn't have a job). Often times, the mother can then make sure the father is never allowed to see the children she has decided to keep without his consent and yet, he gets put in jail for not paying.
I don't think anybody (including the author of this article) would actually advocate for this right of men to leave their responsibility, just as Elizabeth Anne says, but the article is pointing out that if women want to be equal to men, then men should be equal to women. I think it harkens back to the Born Alive Infant protection Act that our current president infamously voted against 4 times. His argument was right, though. If a baby who survives an abortion is truly a baby with rights, then the baby in the woman must be considered a baby with rights as well. The current abortion industry and laws are inconsistent, this article simply finds another inconsistency which should be rectified. It won't be, but it should be (and everyone can see the absurdity of giving fathers the right to walk away scott free- thus we should not allow women the same "right").
May 19, 2010 at 2:52 pm
I just saw this comment by the author of the original article. I think this points succinctly to the purpose:
• Paul Elam
2010-05-19 at 12:32 am
@ Mickey
Hey man. No, brother I have not forgotten at all that we are better than that. I am not advocating that men walk off from their responsibilities, but actually pointing to the fallacy that abortion is about “reproductive rights” and calling into question the legal enslavement of men at the whim of women who may or may not be carrying their child.
I have known few men who walked away from their children, and I don’t think that will change by giving them the legal right to do so.
Of course, we could end this conversation by ending abortions.
May 19, 2010 at 3:20 pm
Men have no say in whether the baby lives or dies. Depending on what state they live in they have no say in whether the mother puts the child up for adoption. They do get stuck for 18 years with a check. I'm not sure this is right.
May 19, 2010 at 4:06 pm
Men have been saying this for years, but since we don't have vaginas, no one ever listens.
May 19, 2010 at 5:26 pm
This is the pro-life version of "A Modest Proposal." Bravo!
May 19, 2010 at 9:04 pm
Hold on. Let me get this straight:
If the woman chooses to murder her child (which, I would think, would be more likely if the man abandoned her or renounced any responsibility towards their unborn child), he gets off scott free. No checks. If he's a loser, he won't care that the baby is dead (no checks!).
If the father wanted to keep the baby, he probably has no say in the matter, and he has to live with the fact that he helped create a new, unique human being–whom his girlfriend or wife (for her own selfish reasons) subsequently murdered. He doesn't have to write a check, but he has to live with that, which would be a heavy cross to bear for a man who was ready and willing to step up and be a father. I agree it shouldn't be this way; the father should have some say if he's willing to help raise the child.
If the father of the unborn child tells his girlfriend, "See ya!" (and I know a girl whose boyfriend did just that; she was ready to have an abortion, but, thanks to God, she didn't), and she decides to keep the baby, all he has to do is send in a check–if (and I mean IF) he actually does send in the check, since many losers do not. Some aren't in a position to, even if they want to. But the losers I'm talking about resent even having to do that. And we want a law allowing them to write off the mother and the baby (whom he helped create) and be excused from paying child support?
I get that the writer (Mr. Elam) doesn't recommend that the entire male population become dogs–chasing tail and then legally "canceling" their paternal responsibilities towards the children they helped create, but what is a real solution to the problem? I'm thinking about one that won't essentially reward the losers and actually encourage their irresponsibility by excusing them from doing anything to support the child (one that's allowed to live), simply because they didn't have a say in whether or not the baby was aborted?
If the girlfriend can legally abort her baby, regardless of what the baby's father wants, he's off the hook. If he's a loser, that's what he wants anyway. If he's a man, what good does it really do to tell him, "Well, next time, if she keeps the baby, you can tell her, 'Nah, thanks. I'm aborting my fatherhood. See ya!'"?
Maybe the goal of such a law would be to eliminate cases where the boyfriend beats up his girlfriend to kill the unborn baby simply because she refuses to have an abortion–thereby threatening his financial and/or personal "freedom."
I'm still inclined to think this law would do more harm than good. I do agree with Mr. Elam, that we could nix the whole argument if we'd just make abortion illegal–which it ought to be, anyway.
May 20, 2010 at 12:34 am
SarahL, the article is satire. The guy who wrote it isn't actually advocating for such a law…
I don't mean to be impatient or rude, but come on. Seriously, we all get it when we watch the Daily Show or the Colbert Report. Why is irony so tough when it is written?!
May 20, 2010 at 3:09 am
EARTH TO ELAM:
"See ya, wouldn't wanna be ya" has been the most common response by men to women they've impregnated since time began…that's one of the reasons this culture of death is in the mess its in now.
May 20, 2010 at 4:59 am
I rarely go to the comment sections of sites that present portions of my work, but I found the OP here and the comments so engaging that I wanted to drop in to help clarify a couple of points.
For the record, this piece is satire with a thread of something quite serious running through it. I do not support the idea of men walking away from their children, but in all honesty I have to tell you that if we insist on financially and legally enabling the killing of children or tearing them away from their fathers through no fault divorce, and continuing the alienation after the divorce via family courts, then I do favor most any law that will cut in to or eliminate the payoff for these terrible actions.
That includes choice for men. I would rather just find ways to end abortion, no fault divorce and also to end the way that fathers are pushed out of families and then later blamed for not being present as fathers. But the choices are limited.
As a culture, we have stood by silently as feminism has destroyed marriage and the family unit. If we don't start to fight back against death and anti-family culture, we will be lost forever. To do this, we have to take on feminism itself, not just abortion laws.
And A note to G. For generations we had men who stayed with their wives and stood by their families, willing to die for them. All that started coming to an end with the advent of gender feminism.
Men are, by and large, G, good. Feminism has turned them into demons, but it just isn't true.
Thanks
Paul Elam
May 21, 2010 at 2:55 am
Amen Paul Elam! I couldn't agree more. I, speaking as a woman, can't wait to see sexism dead and in the grave. Because then and only then am I justified in saying that feminism can die alongside it!
May 21, 2010 at 9:13 pm
I get that it's an attempt at satire. But the following quote, satire or not, just bothered me:
"It’s time for a man to have the unfettered social and legal backing to look at a woman whom he has just impregnated directly in the eye and say, “See ya, wouldn’t want to be ya,” and to stroll off whistling a tune, to enjoy less inconvenient relationships, without his wallet being any lighter or his conscious any heavier.
I'm with G on this one. How would this be a new thing? Yes, there are plenty of men out there–real men–who would not dream of treating a woman like this. But there are, sadly, plenty out there who do.
All in all, I applaud Mr. Elam's attempt to satirize something that so richly deserves ridicule. I just wasn't bowled over by his article.