Thursday, March 31, 2016

Women and Their Unborn (1)

In every presidential election cycle, the abortion debate surfaces, but where is the competency in addressing it?

Presently, we have a hypothetical contrast posed if abortions were made illegal. Namely, should a woman be punished by the law for having an abortion? Or should it be the doctor who performs the abortion who is held liable?

Both scenarios miss the deeper question.

Namely, what drives a woman to seek an abortion? Simply, it is male chauvinism at the deepest level. The vast majority of abortions are the result of a man getting a woman pregnant, then refusing responsibility to her, and to their child.

Roe v. Wade will not be overturned until the voting public embraces this reality. In the meantime, I propose a simple law:

A man who gets a woman pregnant is legally responsible for the well-being of both woman and child.

An honest debate needs to happen in grasping the possible ramifications of such a law, and in the process, both women and their unborn gain deserved esteem.


Unknown said...

The most important thing for people on all sides of this issue to embrace is that this is not a simple issue. In most debates and interviews I hear it is dealt with in trite answers born of preconceived notions and strongly formed opinions, followed by cheers and boos from the audience. At the center of this are women making heavy decisions, or who made decisions, that they carry for life, lifeless children, broken dreams, shame, and all manner of pain. The gladiators were kinder.

Rather than accusatory debates, it would be refreshing to hear people of opposing political positions come together to discuss real solutions. By that, I mean solutions that don't end in death, that provide women with hope, honor and opportunity.

Your suggestion of having the man involved be involved by obligation has merit; but, it could also be abused. I would be very curious to hear people with expertise in the legal and social aspects of this weigh in.

According to, ¾ of women who have an abortion are doing so because they do not believe they can care for the baby and/or have other dependents they have to care for. In that light, a large proportion of the baby's aborted could be saved by requiring the man's involvement; and, perhaps, less babies would be conceived. Still, those babies would now need to be raised. Would that baby's future, and the cycle of poverty, be better off with an emphasis that enables easier adoptions, minimizing overseas baby-mills and costly, time consuming processes? Still, to adequately address the issue, a variety of solutions would need to be implemented to minimize pregnancies, minimize the attractiveness of the abortion solution, and maximize the would-be-parents pre-conception choices.

Unknown said...

We may make very little progress in such a debate unless we have a prior discussion about the culture treating sex as a recreational diversion that everyone is entitled to have at will.