Male box

I give you the inimitable Katha Pollitt on the subject of men in the media dominating the conversation about women's rights:

Trust women. That was the motto of Dr. George Tiller, abortion provider and hero. Dr. Tiller trusted women: to know their own life circumstances, to know themselves. Trusting women has an old-fashioned ring to it, doesn't it, like "sisterhood." How quaint, the notion that a woman, faced with a crisis pregnancy, can reach into herself and make the decision that's right for her--at any rate, a better decision than someone else would make for her, someone who doesn't know her, has never been in her predicament and doesn't have to live with the consequences.

Someone like, oh, a man. In the immediate aftermath of Dr. Tiller's murder it was astonishing how many men were called upon to weigh in on abortion on national television. CNN featured William Schneider, Sanjay Gupta and Bill Press. On Fox, Bill O'Reilly defended his use of "baby killer" and "death mill" to describe Dr. Tiller and his clinic. On MSNBC, Keith Olbermann--who the last time I checked in spent a whole segment making fun of Miss Anti-Gay Marriage California's breast implants with waspish misogynist Michael Musto--had only men: Slate's Will Saletan, who thinks we can "end" abortion by stigmatizing women with unwanted pregnancies, because right now everyone is just too kind, and Andrew Sullivan, who knows as much about women's reproductive lives as I know about soliciting bareback sex on the Internet. Sullivan confessed:

I do think that--I mean, I'm personally opposed to what he does. I actually don't believe in late-term abortions. But I have to say--on my blog today, a lot of women wrote in and told me their own stories of this. And I was kind of shaken by the fact that most--most women--almost all women that go to these places, are in desperate straits. The children are very, very deformed or ill or will not survive birth or the mother's health is directly threatened. These are very grave and difficult circumstances.

So Sullivan, who has been an outspoken antichoicer for two decades, is only now finding out why women terminate pregnancies? Shouldn't that have been part of the basic research? And even after hearing the awful stories, he still, apparently, thinks Dr. Tiller was wrong to help them: women ought to carry anencephalic fetuses to term, give birth to Tay-Sachs babies who will live a few brief agonized years, postpone their own cancer treatment or heart surgery to give birth even if delay means they die, have their stepfather's baby in middle school. But at least he feels bad about it now.

In the more than three decades since Roe v. Wade, "the fetus" gradually became the star of the abortion drama, and the voices of women who had abortions, aka "the woman," leached out of the public discussion. How many embryos can dance on the head of a pin--now that's interesting! Off-the-cuff judgments about how late is too late and what kinds of health problems count as serious--everyone's a doctor!

Kind of reminds me of some of the people who show up to argue against women's reproductive rights here. There's never a thought for their well-being, privacy, human rights, or right to live their lives as they wish.

For them, there's never an alternative. It's either ''Slut! Bring up your children in poverty and shame! That will teach you!'' or "Go find yourself a back alley abortionist.''

Seriously, gentlemen, what do you propose? Prison for all women of child-bearing years? Chastity belts? Forced sterilizations? Assassinating doctors and clinic staff? Police officers in every OB/GYN examination room? State monitoring of our menstrual cycles? Wire hangers? Drano?

Tell me.

Because all your intellectual arguments about whether a few cells in MY body trump my life, rights and choices just don't cut it.

This is the real world and there are real world consequences.

So what's your answer?

Oh, and while we're on the subject, this is from Tuesday's Hansard.

(H/t Alison @ Creekside.)

UPPITY WOMAN DATE: As of this moment, 2:03 p.m. on Friday, I have yet to find a single pragmatic answer to my questions. Not one ''solution'' except ''adoption.''

Okay, so let's look at adoption:

First of all, women are not breeders for infertile couples, or those who want more children. It is hard to give up a child. So there will be many women, often in difficult circumstances, trying to bring up children, with or without their fathers' support.

Second, with the improvements in reproductive technology, fewer couples need to adopt. Now people can have triplets at the drop of what's in a turkey baster.

Third, very often the same people who are against abortion are against same-sex couple adoption.

Fourth, many children go unadopted already. The waiting lists of unwanted children are long.

Five, figure 100K abortions per year in Canada. Say half are kept by their mothers (see above.) Who is going to adopt 50,000 children, including those with severe abnormalities? Who is going to adopt 50,000 children, including those with severe abnormalities EVERY YEAR?

Where will these children go? Will they all become wards of the state? Maybe we can donate them to the military, the way kids became cannon fodder in past centuries? Or how about using them for cheap labour, like they did in Dickensian workhouses? 

I await your answers, gentlemen.

Comments

[Robert McClelland]

"Forced sterilizations?"

On a tangential note, it seems that women don't even have the right to sterilization.

http://www.torontosun.com/news/2009/06/11/9760881.html#/news/columnists/michele_mandel/2009/06/11/pf-9759601.html

"To ensure things unfold as they should, they asked her obstetrician to tie her tubes during her planned Caesarean section in October so they won't have any more kids.

"No, I won't do it," Dr. Kayode Ayodele told her unequivocally. "You're too young."

A tubal ligation was simply not even open for discussion. He told her that she might get involved with someone else down the road and regret her decision. He told her it's a permanent sterilization method and he's had so many patients wanting it reversed, that he won't even consider performing one now on any woman under 25."

[David Marniss]

"Kind of reminds me of some of the people who show up to argue against women's reproductive rights here. There's never a thought for their well-being, privacy, human rights, or right to live their lives as they wish.

For them, there's never an alternative. It's either ''Slut! Bring up your children in poverty and shame! That will teach you!'' or "Go find yourself a back alley abortionist.''

Seriously, gentlemen, what do you propose? Prison for all women of child-bearing years? Chastity belts? Forced sterilizations? Assassinating doctors and clinic staff? Police officers in every OB/GYN examination room? State monitoring of our menstrual cycles? Wire hangers? Drano?

Tell me.

Because all your intellectual arguments about whether a few cells in MY body trump my life, rights and choices just don't cut it.

This is the real world and there are real world consequences."

Yes, this is the real world, there are consequences to your actions. When having sex, one of the possible consequences include the conception of a child. Being pregnant doesn't mean you're a slut, it means you've had sex. What you're saying is that because someone doesn't feel quite up to the task of owning up to their actions, they should have the right to terminate a life. This denies personal responsibility.

I'd also like to point out that, bringing a child up in poverty isn't an argument against the pro-life movement. It merely showcases how callously you view life to say that it would be better to not live at all then to live below the poverty line.

For all of your semantics, no one is proposing any of those ludicrous implementations you are mentioning. The only true goal of a person in the pro-life movement is to have the government recognize the dignity of human life.

[Antonia]

The only goal is recognition of the dignity of a fetus?
Give me a break.

[The Stygian and his Shemitish Dogs]

Esteemed and Beautiful Moderator,

Seeing you asked ....

Make adoption easier and end foreign adoptions until ALL babies within Canada have been placed.

Obviously abortion will always be with us, but so will all sorts of other crimes. We can just hope to minimise it.

[Keith]

"Because all your intellectual arguments about whether a few cells in MY body trump my life, rights and choices just don't cut it."

This few cells arguement of yours is so telling of superior rights/status desire that feminists aspire to. It seems to show how you wish to have the group of few a cells that make up your being to have superior rights to that of all the other cell groups on the plant. If some group of cells were to terminated the life of another group of cells, wouldn't that be murder? Lets see, if a cell group is a man, takes the life of cell group, woman, then yes murder. If cell group, woman, takes the life of cell group, man, than yes murder. If cell group, woman, takes the life of cell group fetus then it's just as much murder. Only in your mind is it different, but in reality it is not.

[johnnykap]

Antonia, I realize this is an abortion blog, but it is also cloaked under the larger umbrella of feminism. It's interesting that you and your feminist sistren just haven't found the bandwidth to take on David Letterman's comments about his desire to see Sarah Palin's 14 year old daughter raped.

Under normal circumstances (ie, if Palin were a lib), you would have been out in defense of the 14 year old.

But since Letterman is a lib, and Palin is a con, you just can't seem to find the angle to create a compelling thread, when it's staring you right in the face.

[Marky Mark]

Ms Pollitt's point concerning male domination of the [U.S.] television debate is well taken, but her personal attack on Andrew Sullivan is over the top.

[CatBoreal]

"This denies personal responsibility."

Ah yes, one of the famous battle cries against abortion.... PERSONAL RESPONSIBILITY!

So I ask you, if a woman who has an abortion avoiding the consequences of her action - ie motherhood, what of the woman giving up that child for adoption? Neither woman is getting up in the middle of the night to feed or burp a baby. Neither of the women are going to have to feed/clothe/educate/care for a child until the age of 18. I would say adoption and abortion are equally responsibility free. And yet, you would push adoption as 'taking responsibility' for one's actions?

Seems to me that both the woman who aborts, and the woman who are giving their child up for adoption are free of the consequences of having sex.

I would propose, given the above comparisson, that any woman who makes a decision about pregnancy, be it to keep their child, put their child up for adoption or abort is taking responsibility for their actions. She *is* taking responsibility for her health and well being - just not the way *you* would like her to.

Time to move on to your next point.

[croghan27]

If I remember correctly before safe medical abortions became available there were orphanages for these children. They were run by the Christian Brothers, but there were others A commission in Ireland just investigated that whole "charitable" effort.

This is an option?

[Dafe Oputu]

"The only goal is recognition of the dignity of a fetus?
Give me a break."

What do you mean by that Antonia? You answered none of Marniss' points at all! Though come to think of it you never do. You never properly rebut points brought up by MRN or Stygian either. Hmm, why?

[Dafe Oputu]

The two arguments for prolife are claiming responsibility AND value of a child's life. yes adoption is rejecting responsibility of raising the child, but it accepts the responsibility of carrying it. Also it places value on the child's life, which in the end is the most important thing. Adoption isn't as good as raising a child as far as the woman's responsibility is concerned, but for the child it can even be better. Abortion is worse with both aspects.

[CatBoreal]

The child's life is the most important thing?

This goes back to Antonia's point, WHAT ABOUT THE MOTHER? So long as she's caring for a child, who cares? Is that it?

That is cold. You seem to be forgetting that there are two entities involved here, if you claim to be pro-life you would remember that there is a woman's LIFE involved in this, not just a fetus.

[David Marniss]

CatBoreal, you've missed the point. Even if you give up a child for adoption, you've allowed the child to live. By having an abortion, you're removing a life because you can't cope with the consequences of your actions. If you carry the child, you've fulfilled your responsibility in birthing this life. Once the child is alive, if you feel that you can't care for the child, then you give it away for a better life. Your responsibility as a parent is to do what's best for your child. Killing your child is never what's best for your child, especially if it's merely due to personal inconvenience.

[The Stygian and his Shemitish Dogs]

"'No, I won't do it," Dr. Kayode Ayodele told her unequivocally. "He told her it's a permanent sterilisation method and he's had so many patients wanting it reversed, that he won't even consider performing one now on any woman under 25."

Robert,

You don't seem to have read your own posting. This doctor appears to have decided not to tie tubes because too many people seek to have the operation reversed. Apparently reversing that operation is rather difficult, and I'd say the doctor was within his rights to decline.

[David Marniss]

"Give me a break"...followed by nothing...>_>

Your argument against the pro-life mentality is that there will be too many children...So yeah, although I wasn't referring to this form of population control...population control nonetheless.
To address what you said, I suppose I'll break it up.

1) Your first argument...people who are incapable, fiscally, of caring for a child would keep their children. Well, first of all, based on my understanding that life is life is life is life. That is to say, human life has value by virtue of being alive and sentient, to say that in a situation of Murder Vs. Poverty, that poverty is worse, is ludicrous. If their lives are so bad, they can kill themselves. But they won't, because living is better than not living.

2)Not as many people can adopt, so the kids won't be adopted. So we should just kill them..>_> Yes, based on your logic, we should kill children who aren't being adopted because...well..you haven't really given a reason why..>_>

3)You assume that all people pro-life, are against same sex adoption...so...yeah. I don't see how that justifies abortion. You already said that no one would adopt the kids, and the married, homosexual population isn't large enough to have a significant impact on adoption.

4) Many children aren't adopted...this again. So, it's better we kill them before they live their lives in a way we deem awful and thus not worth living. Yes...It's better to be dead than to be living in an orphanage. I'll remember that.

5) The kids won't be adopted...Yeah. So...I've been over this...

Wherever these kids go, we should be arguing over viable places for them to live and to increase adoption rates, rather than arguing whether or not their lives are worth living.

You seem to believe that a life in an orphanage, or life of poverty isn't worth living. Basically, we should just kill all the poor people. Because poor people haven't been able to do anything to contribute to society ever...one of the greatest philosophers in history was a bum...if you didn't know. Not that anyone's right to live should be justified. Life is life is life is life.

[David Marniss]

"The child's life is the most important thing?

This goes back to Antonia's point, WHAT ABOUT THE MOTHER? So long as she's caring for a child, who cares? Is that it?

That is cold. You seem to be forgetting that there are two entities involved here, if you claim to be pro-life you would remember that there is a woman's LIFE involved in this, not just a fetus."

You're forgetting two things. One, that I've already mentioned that if a woman's life is in significant risk, then it's up to them to decide if they want to go through with child birth. If someone's going to die, they merely choose who. Either way, it's a tragedy. Secondly, I recognize a woman's life is involved, however I also recognize that this same woman has conceived a child and has a responsibility to the life that she has brought into this world. If you don't want to have a child, don't have sex. That's how children happen.....it's not a mystery. You can take all the precautions in the world, but you have to understand that there will still be risk.

[Catboreal]

Personal inconvenience? Did you actually say that being pregnant is nothing more than a PERSONAL INCONVENIENCE?

Okay, fine. What if it's more than a personal inconvenience? What if it puts your life, your health, your well being in jeopardy? What then? And who gets to decide what's merely an 'inconvenience'?

Have you ever been pregnant? Just in case you haven't yet (oh wait, you'll never be - silly me) pregnancy is Hell (full disclosure, I've been pregnant 3 times). Even fairly uncomplicated ones are incredibly difficult. It's not a case of throwing up a couple of times and then it's all wine (de-alcoholized), roses and cute maternity clothes. For some women it will debilitate them for months, sometimes for the entire pregnancy.

Now imagine your single, trying to support yourself on your own - and your pregnant. You don't have a salaried job that allows you sick days, or you may not have the means to buy the drugs (Declectin - if it works) that will give you some measure of relief from the morning sickness so you can work, because you lack a drug plan. And you're not entirely sure your employer will keep on once he finds out your pregnant - this has been happening more and more.

http://www.thestar.com/article/623726

Go ahead, tell me again that an unwanted, unplanned pregnancy is merely an 'inconvenience'.

[Griz]

Though I agree with your first article, your response "Uppity women date" really bothers me. It appears that you did not do the research in the same way that you accuse Sullivan of. The number of children with special needs waiting to be adopted is large, but then it's that way for the same reason that many abortions are done on foetuses with disabilities; parents think, right or wrong, that they'll be unable to cope with the additional challenges of a child with special needs. If you examine the waiting lists for "healthy" babies , you'll find parents can wait six or seven years to reach the top. Am I wrong in assuming that you're including quality of life in the criteria used for keeping or terminating pregnancy?

As well, your arguments about where all the disabled babies will go is a bit of a straw man given the current waiting list for healthy babies. Increasing support for adoption for children with special needs is not the same as banning abortion.

Perhaps I have a bias as I was adopted as a newborn.

My birth-mother (I hate that distinction), when I asked her , said that when you have an unwanted pregnancy, there weren't any good choices left, but adoption was a way to not make another mistake. I know not everyone will have the option of carrying a baby to term, but just as I don't believe that abortion should be banned, I also don't believe it should be the first reflexive response to an unwanted pregnancy.

[MensRightsNow]

"Five, figure 100K abortions per year in Canada. Say half are kept by their mothers (see above.) Who is going to adopt 50,000 children, including those with severe abnormalities? Who is going to adopt 50,000 children, including those with severe abnormalities EVERY YEAR?"

This tells us a lot about the never ending trip down the the societal toilet bowl, not abortion.

On "100 000 abortions per year in Canada."

Note: 80% of those are by women b/w 20-39 years of age. Full grown, responsible adults who HAVE to be aware of how babies are made....but still refuse to accept full responsibilty at not getting pregnant. Remember, it's not the man's responsibility at all, and that is at feminism's request, as men have no say in having the child, and no say in becoming "financial fathers" against their will.

Feminsism states: You are in control (condom, blah, blah), but irrespective of what happens after, you have no control. Complete BS, but a great deal for women.

Consenting to intercourse is not the same as consenting to fatherhood.

[David Marniss]

....

Catboreal. It is an inconvenience. Sometimes a great inconvenience, but an inconvenience nonetheless. Unless there is significant and legitimate claim to a mothers life then abortion should not be allowed. And given that the vast majority of the time, this is not the case, I see no reason to suggest that abortion be legal to the extent that it is today merely to accomodate the vast minority of people who legitimately deserve it as an option. Those individuals whose lives are actually at risk.

I've said it before, and I'll say it again. Babies don't appear out of no where. Sex causes babies. It may not be your intended purpose, however having sex means that there is a chance someone is getting pregnant. Just because you refuse to accept this reality, doesn't mean that you can deny the responsibility of bringing a life into the world ala Victor Frankenstein. Just because you choose to view sex as recreational does not excuse you from this fact either. At the end of the day, when you have sex, you have to understand that you could end up pregnant.

To a man, this means, that he has to be ready to raise a child. Right now, he's legally bound to that, financially. However. In a society where a woman is allowed to kill her child, a man should not be forced into a financial obligation to the child. Just like the woman, he should be allowed to remove his responsibilty, just like the woman has that same option. Although many will say that men will abuse this, at the same time, woman will abuse abortion as well. So, in a sense, this is gender equality in a world with abortion. As amoral as it sounds, you have to understand, the lines start to get fuzzy when you begin to legalize infanticide.

[Keith]

Antonia, Why isn't letting the Father raise his child even an option in your mind? Or is it in your mind via, the mother adopting away her responsibility for the child leaving the Father of the child to bare 100% of the cost of raising the child without any support for the mother? It would appear that adoption in the mind of the feminist really just means prolife form of aborting responsibility. If feminists are in favor of aborting responsibility for women why don't they support men being able to abort thier responsibility?

Opps, I forgot, only men have to be responsible, women don't have to be.

[CatBoreal]

David,

I don't know how blunt I have to be with you. Being pregnant is *NOT* an inconvenience. An inconvenience is is having your car break down and not being able to make it into work on time. An inconvenience is having to make an unplanned run to the grocery store because you forgot to pick up the milk.

A pregnancy is an life-changing event and one that *should* be the choice of the person who's life is being changed. It is stress, it is worry, it is puking on your shoes and not being able to walk because your sciatica is so bad. It is high blood pressure, kidney damage and bed rest if things go really bad. It`s death if it ends tragically.

And let`s not even talk about Post Partum Depression and all the other problems that come after the child is born.

The reality is that pregnancy can affect a woman`s life FOR YEARS!

Ultimately, I think everyone would like to see that every child *conceived* is a wanted child. That is not going to happen. So, the person`s who`s life is most being affected by the pregnancy needs to make that decision. No one else has the right to do so.

[CatBoreal]

Keith,

Do you want to know what an irresponsible woman looks like in terms of childbirth.

It is the woman who has indiscriminate sex whilst not protecting herself from either pregnancy or disease. When she does get pregnant, she goes on about her life, drinking or taking drugs, never caring for her health, or that of the child. She then gives birth to that child in a bathroom stall, wraps it in a garbage bag and puts it in the dumpster behind the building.

That is being irresponsible.

A woman who chooses abortion is being responsible for her health, her well-being and her future. She is looking at her options and potential outcomes and choosing a course of action. Those are not the behaviours of an irresponsible person.

[Voto Latino]

CatBoreal, while it is true that pregnancy is always a momentous occurence in the life of a woman, which I as a male do not understand, you make several mistakes in your argument. For one, you state that the woman's life is the most affected by pregnancy. On the contrary, in every pregnancy, it is the fetus's life that is most directly affected by the pregancy, seeing as it is entirely dependant on it for most of the 9 months. Secondly, I agree with you that it is not an "inconvenience". It can be a grave affliction as you explained. So is, for example, a torn ACL. Similarly, they both often result from a bad decision. Callous as it may seem, there are consequences for our actions, whether it be almost total immobility for several months as well as excruciating pain because you decided to jump down a flight of stairs while intoxicated in a pair of filpflops, or the symptoms you described because you had sex. It is unjust to deny someone the chance to live because you do not want to face the consequences of your actions.

[Keith]

Oh CatBoral, That is but only one type irresponsible woman. The other type is the one that hunts for a victim. Once located they seduce the victim so as to impregnate themselves. Once impregnated, the irresponsible mother aborts the father from their life and the life of the child. Their well chosen victim will still be held responsible by society for the decision that the woman made for the next 18 years. The victim has zero option to abort their responsibilities. They are stuck with the life that the woman has chosen for THEM. No wonder feminists are pro-choice. They cherish the right to choose their victim and hold the victim responsible while they be irresponsible.

[Antonia]

Still waiting for answers from you gentlemen about how some 50,000 to 100,000 babies every year -- EVERY YEAR -- will be cared for. We have Keith for example who won't even take responsibility for his own semen.

The rest of you are still stuck on the microscopic tadpoles that don't even qualify as fetuses. You will not even acknowledge that they are part and parcel of the woman's body. So, tell ya what. Let's have a procedure where we can attach them to your bodies, and you can be pregnant. Deal?

Why is it the woman who has to pay for having had sex? HUNH?

Still waiting. 50,000 - 100,000 babies EVERY YEAR. How many will you take Voto Latino? How many have you adopted so far?

[Catboreal]

Well Voto, at least we agree on something. You will *never* understand pregnancy.

And choosing to have an abortion is in fact facing the consequences of one's actions. To the contrary, the consequence is pregnancy and making a choice how to deal with it, be it adoption, abortion or keeping the child is facing that reality. It is a bad decision amongst bad decisions

Do not think for an instant that abortion is consequence free. Look at all the pro-lifer's so called documentation as to how abortion negatively impacts the health and well-being of the women who have undergone the procedure. You know, all that stuff that supposedly Planned Parenthood and their ilk never talk about?

So tell me, is abortion consequence free, or isn't it?

[David Marniss]

Antonia...You're justifying murder by saying that we won't have room for them....That's what you're saying. We'll make room if that's the case. Funding that is going to promote abortion, can go into helping these children.

Microscopic tadpoles...Size does not diminish the value of life. The distinction between humans, and other s***, is genetic. The fertilizesd Zygote is genetically human, and retains that same genetic fingerprint for the rest of that individuals life. That's the birth of a person.
"Why is it the woman who has to pay everything for sex?"

Everyone has different responsibilities. Everyone understands what happens when they have sex, and if they don't, ignorance does not excuse evil. If a woman chooses to have sex, she has to understand that she can get pregnant. If a man has sex, he has to understand that he might become a father. Both are tied to this fact. Both must face the reprecussions of their actions.

Antonia, you've missed what Keith said entirely. You're missing the fact that woman have the option to kill their child. If a woman can kill a child, a man should be legally allowed to forsaken his own. Like the mother. Both should be equally allowed to relinquish their responsibilities. You stress equality but you can't even understand this inequality in that a man, no matter what, has to care for the child. Even though he has no say in it's life. A say, the woman very much so, has.

[David Marniss]

@Catboreal:

I'm going to spell it out for you, because for some reason...you lack the ability to put things together. When a woman has sex, she has made a decision that could have serious reprecussions. This being the birthing of a life. That woman, has a responsibility to that child. Not to say that a man doesn't, but at the moment, he has no way of aiding that child. To say that a woman can kill her child, because she chose to have sex, and brought this child into the world, and for no other reason than they don't want the child, or the life of the child will be crappy,she can end that life is ridiculous.

Abortion isn't consequence free, no. There are consequences to murder. It affects the conscious.

[Voto Latino]

Well Antonia, as the link you provided in your point 5 of the update states, there is a far greater demand for adopted children than there is a supply, causing many hopeful couples to look abroad for children, so if your link is to be trusted we shouldn't have to worry too much about whether or not these children will find homes.

Catboreal, I am not saying that abortion is not consequence free. What I am saying is that abortion avoids the consequences of the pregnancy that occurs, this consequence being the development of a new life. It is not within the woman's power to decide whether or not the child deserves to live. If in fact if what Antonia and others have suggested that all virtually non-aborted children will grow up to have miserable lives, what is suggested by that argument is that abortion is a form of pre-emptive mercy killing. Is it not more just to allow the person whose life will supposedly be so intolerable to make the decision of whether or not to end their life once they have matured? After all, there is a reason assisted suicide is still illegal, I think.

[PaulR]

"Consenting to intercourse is not the same as consenting to fatherhood."
--------
Nor is it really the same as consenting to motherhood, and in some of those instances, abortion is a choice women have.

I may be reading you wrong (and I'm confident you'll correct me), but I'm getting from you a bit of having your cake and eating it too.

In other discussions here, you've acknowledged, as have I, that the gestation of children is one of several causes for the wage gap, which has the potential to pull mothers out of the workforce either for a portion of the gestation, or for the support of the children (as may be the case in dual income families where the mother makes less money, or in single mother households where the mother cannot raise funding to offset the cost of childcare). There is no pat solution for that (though universal childcare would be big help for both groups), and we are forced to acknowledge that a portion of the response is "Tough bananas - your biology allows you to gestate children, where men do not have that choice." It's their burden, and their gift.

But it compromises that argument to suggest that women should not have the choice of whether or not they will gestate or deliver children because it might be inconvenient. It's not a slam dunk, granted, but it does complicate matters when on one hand we say "tough bananas" to women on the wage gap accounted for less time and/or ambition in pursuit of higher wages, while at the same time saying "tough bananas" that they are saddled with gestational burdens for a relatively brief indiscretion or accident, or a change of circumstance, of understanding, or of mind.

Not being a "men's advocate" per se, I'm inclined to think that if it was tough bananas for women on the wage gap, then it's fair enough to say its tough bananas for men on disagreements on whether or not their partners will gestate an unwanted baby for him, or do so in defiance of his will. These are the hands we are dealt as men or women.

[CatBoreal]

Yo! Voto! We're talking about abortion and the a woman's right to control her own fertility, not relationship dynamics.

Let's try to stick to the topic, shall we?

[...pat.]

David, I don't think you get it. We don't accept your framing of the argument. Your insistence that zygote=child is not agreed upon. It has the *potential* to become a child, but certainly isn't one.

[MensRightsNow]

Paul: I am focussing on the inequity of law and I do not accept weak "tough banana" free passes.

Feminism is supposedly about equality.

Both a man and women participated in the same irresponsible act or act with an unintended consequence. Females are rewarded for their irresponsibility by the state or they can abort their irresponsibility.

On the other hand, males are badly punished by the state and can have their lives completely destroyed by the EXACT SAME irresponsibility....and be called "dead beats" to boot! This isn't equality.

Further to the "wrap it up" crowd: A condom is not a right any more than a birth control pill. Both forms of contraception can result in unintended consequences, and neither legally absolves a man of his RIGHT to NOT be a father. It doesn't even matter if she practices birth control, the point is moot. Now THAT is having your cake and eating it too! Paul, you believe in feminist privilege, I don't.

[Voto Latino]

I'm talking about the right to life and the right of a person to make the decision to end their own life. I don't see where you're getting relationship dynamics from my post. The right to life of the child is central to the abortion debate and is in fact perhaps the most pivotal issue.

[Antonia]

How many zygotes can dance on the head of a pin? Ho-hum, that is not the point of this post, gentlemen. You keep refusing to even acknowledge let alone address the topic.

ONCE AGAIN, and I quote:

''Seriously, gentlemen, what do you propose? Prison for all women of child-bearing years? Chastity belts? Forced sterilizations? Assassinating doctors and clinic staff? Police officers in every OB/GYN examination room? State monitoring of our menstrual cycles? Wire hangers? Drano?

''Tell me.

''Because all your intellectual arguments about whether a few cells in MY body trump my life, rights and choices just don't cut it.

''This is the real world and there are real world consequences.

''So what's your answer?''

They have no answer for this. They have no idea how to enforce a system which allows no choice. Still waiting to hear. Jail all the women? Jail all the doctors? Station police officers in OB/GYN exam rooms? Make women report their menstrual cycles to the state every month? How does it work?

Never mind all the babies, 50-100,000 EVERY YEAR, that would have to go somewhere.

You guys are on notice. Any comments which do not address this topic shall be deleted.

[David Marniss]

....

Antonia. Antonia. They will enforce it like any other law. If you break the law, you will be punished in some way. You stress so much choice, you might as well be an anarchist, because you're confusing choice with total freedom. No one has total freedom. You aren't allowed to do tons of things in this world. Killing your child should be one of those things. There would not be abortion clinics in an abortion-less world. If an abortion is found to be necessary, hospitals would have the necessary tools do go through with the task.

"Jail all the woman? Jail all the doctors?"

No...>_> A doctor who commits an abortion would be penalized. License...blah..blah..blah.

"Station police officers in OB/GYN exam rooms?"

Why would they even do that? That doesn't make any sense.

"Make woman report their menstrual cycles to the state every month?"

No...because that wouldn't do anything.. How would that help at all?

This is what happens. 3 parties involved. The woman, the doctor, and the dead baby. The woman and the doctor would be penalized. The doctor would probably lose his license or something to that effect. And the child would continue being dead.

I don't see how your current train of logic justifies the legalization of abortion. Suicide being illegal is effectively impossible to enforce. Yet it's a law nonetheless.

Once again...you can't site population control as justification for abortion. Not only is it ludicrous, but immoral.

[PaulR]

Both forms of contraception can result in unintended consequences, and neither legally absolves a man of his RIGHT to NOT be a father. It doesn't even matter if she practices birth control, the point is moot. Now THAT is having your cake and eating it too! Paul, you believe in feminist privilege, I don't.
-------
We both understand that feminism is about advocacy, not equality. In the same way, Men's Rights are also about advocacy, not equality. Your myopic focus, taken to its logical conclusion, is no different than what you are arguing against. It's the same rhetorical structure as feminism.

Antonia's argument is a fairly fresh take on it (at least for me). I see the merit in her point that there is no way to practically enforce an abortion ban, without going back to the horrors of the way it used to be done. The criminalization of societal norms (ie Prohibition of booze, the Drug Wars) does not stop the behaviour --it tends to make it less safe by driving it underground, while criminalizing the lives of normal people caught in extraordinary circumstances (well, not THAT extraordinary). Abortion is, by and large, considered an extreme measure for the mother, regardless of whether it's done in a back alley or in a proper medical facility. It's usually the measure chosen by normal people who feel they are without better options, given their reality.

There is a subtext here in some arguments that presents gestation as a punishment for poor sexual choices - which seems odd to me, since it seems the fetus is viewed as a godly consequence or affliction for a moral transgression. In that sense, there seems to be common ground on both sides - since the fetus is being treated as a malady - or at least as something less than human. Moreover, we don't deny medical treatment to people who make poor choices in other areas - such as smoking, or driving too fast or even driving drunk.

Anyway, MRN, I don't believe in feminist privelege, though it wouldn't be the first time I've heard Men's Rights folks trying to paint me that way. While your general thesis has some merit in regards to child custody or the unfair assignment of parental duties, this I think is a secondary point to the question of the conflict between the freedom and convenience of a woman over her own body, over the right of a zygote or potential human, or total human being to use that same body to live.

[PaulR]

^in other words, where gestation is concerned, if the chips are down and you find yourself in an unresolvable conflict with your pregnant partner, unless you have the uterus, this all spectator politics, like Canadians commenting on the US election.

You might feel strongly and argue passionately, but if our bodies are not serving as host (it has nothing to do with fairness), we will have less skin in the game than they do. All things being equal - well, they aren't really equal in this regard. You may think it's your stuff, but it's their house.

[MensRightsNow]

Paul...I am not denying a woman choice. I am promoting choice for men. Upon conception he gets to choose too. Equality. Your post oozes chivalry.

Don't burden the women with a 9 month pregnancy (it's her house) but shackle the man with 18+ years of financial support and the label dead beat? Is that what you are saying? I call BS. You in essence are punishing men for taking part in the same act.

I am not suggesting men abandon a newborn here, not pay c/s, etc. I am giving men the choice to proceed with fatherhood (if she wants) or opt out (even if she wants). It should be his constitutional right. I am about equality, not advocacy, do not speak for me.

[PaulR]

"I am about equality, not advocacy, do not speak for me." -MRN
-------
Gee. Where have you heard that one before, *MEN'S RIGHTS* Now? Anyone else on this blog ever say the same kind of thing?

I've mentioned before, it really doesn't matter which gender relations orthodoxy I discuss, either side would rather characterize me as belonging to the other camp. While it seems too perfect and contrived an example here, this is indeed how it happens.

MRN, I'm inclined to think that there is merit to your point, but that the issue of gestation is assigned by nature, and the issue of the assignment of parental custody is one of politics.

So yes, if a woman does not want to be burdened with a pregnancy, it's her house. And the issue of whether or not it is fair that a woman can conscript an unwilling male to take a financial responsibility is a seperate thing (in certain cases, whether or not he is even the natural father). The question of fairness is a difficult one to resolve, since nature has no concept of it.

I think that you take an argument that is reasonably strong in the first place, and get it bound and twisted into an aprocryphal mixture of politics and religion when you try to backdoor it through the abortion debate. Rhetorically, if you are looking for an angle there, you'd probably be better to hitch your wagon to an example that is largely settled, where there is wide agreement.

[Keith]

Antonia, Women should get the same thing that men currently get. Any man who by choice doesn't support thier children or being a victim of layoff or personal medical condition which prevents them from supporting thier children, THEY GO TO JAIL. Wake up and smell the coffee, that's how men are held responsible for caring for their children, and for a women to expect anything different they are expecting GREATER rights then men, not equal rights.