Between 1973 and 2002, there have been approximately 46
million induced abortions in America, according to the
Guttmacher Institute, an organization that tracks such things. Lately, I've been asking myself some questions about that: Nobody likes abortion, right? Nobody thinks abortion is a
good thing. At least, that's the conventional wisdom. So why are there so many of them? Why do women have abortions, anyway? Anti-abortion advocates pretend with all their might that legal, constitutionally protected abortions protect a woman's rights. They pretend with all their might that it's about Roe v. Wade. It's not. The dirty little secret about abortion is that abortion protects
men's rights. And as such, abortion, whether legal or not, is not going to go away.
Men want -- men
cherish-- the freedom to have sex with women and then set them completely adrift, if they feel like it. Abortion protects the male prerogative to treat women like whores -- the prerogative to say to them:
"I'm finished with you now. Get out." The dirty little secret about abortion is that it's
not about Roe v. Wade. It's about
Ho' v. Wade. To prove my point, in the first of this two-part diary I'm going to let you in on a conversation that took place among some regular-type fellas. Read the thread and pretend you're a fly on the wall inside a men's locker room. I'll make a few observations at the end.
The conversation started innocuously enough, when a college student posted this question on a blog:
As a man I was wondering how much right we have to help decide whether a women should have an abortion or not? -- Brian Brett, a hard working student of Gonzaga University
The question was taken up by the following joe-sixpacks: "John Knight," "wf3h," "michael," "Bob," "pope dilbert," "rmj," "cary," "john jones," "obo," "BrettG," and "Society." (Get to know them. Chances are, one of them is with your sister or daughter right now.) For purposes of clarity, I've alternated the speakers in boxed and unboxed text, and edited the thread very slightly. Here goes:
John Knight:
As a man I was wondering how much right we have to help decide whether a women should have an abortion or not? -- Brian Brett a hard working student of Gonzaga University
Why don't you call up the slut Sandra Day O'Connor and ask her?
Or read what this slut wrote:
The spousal consent provision in 3 (3), which does not comport with the standards enunciated in Roe v. Wade, supra, at 164-165, is unconstitutional, since the State cannot "`delegate to a spouse a veto power which the [S]tate itself is absolutely and totally prohibited from exercising during the first trimester of pregnancy.'" / Planned Parenthood v. Danforth, 428 U.S. 52 (1976)]
or
/In keeping with our rejection of the common law understanding of a woman's role within the family, the Court held in Danforth that the Constitution does not permit a State to require a married woman to obtain her husband's consent before undergoing an abortion. 428 U. S., at 69 Planned Parenthood of Southeastern Pa. v. Casey, 505 U.S. 833 (1992)
Now, according to this great feminazi mind, if you are an "American citizen", you have NO reproductive rights. An "American" FIELD MOUSE has more "reproductive rights" than us STUPID men.
cary:
Sandra Day O'Connor wasn't even on the Court when Roe v. Wade was decided, it was nine males -- but of course it's all her fault anyway, right? Sandra Day O'Connor wasn't even on the Court when Missouri v. Danforth was decided, it was nine males -- but of course it's all her fault anyway, right? Blame the chick. Here's a hint, John: it was a copout when Adam tried used it to squirm out, and it hasn't gotten any more manly since then.
wf3h:
since men don't use their bodies to reproduce there's no reason why we should have the power to enforce slavery over women.
michael:
The time to decide whether a woman should have your baby is before sex If you don't do it then you have no rights.
John Jones:
That's the anti-abortion argument. So you're opposed to women having a post-conception choice WRT (with respect to?) to parenthood?
michael:
Not at all. If you ask me I would gladly give you seed. As long as you agreed not to charge me for raising it.
rmj:
Even if she did agree (and even put it in writing) she could change her mind and take you to court for child support, and she would win.
Bob:
That's disappointing. I would like to think that men are more concerned about our children than that. And remember, that even with her signed agreement you could still be sued and your money taken. Law in many places does not allow a mother to waive the "child's" right to have mom take dad's money.
michael:
Yes it is nice to fantasize but first and foremost in the mind of most men is sex. Kids and puppies are cute and fun to play with. And If it is in my house I feed them. But when a woman screws me and then screws me out of my children, home, car, furniture and packs up pussy to leave, she gives up any right to my protection or money.
pope dilbert:
The children, by law, are still yours and still your financial responsibility. The only unfairness is when, and this is happening to a friend, the mother (divorced) is making three times what the father is; the father is below poverty level, while the mother makes enough to afford a new car with ease .. yet the man still has to pay a large part of his income for support - driving him even further into poverty! Were they married, the combined incomes would support all three. When they're not, her income and his needs are not considered.... You do not absolve yourself of that responsibility merely by getting pissed because you may have been screwed.
michael:
The children, by law, are still yours and still your financial responsibility.
FINE then Give me what is mine and I will care for them.
The only unfairness is when, and this is happening to a friend...
Who makes the most money means nothing. When the law takes or a woman takes everything for herself then she can damn well pay all the bills. I don't pay people to burn my life down....Laws are made to be broken. I am not bound to obey an unjust law. If it don't live in my house I am not supporting it. That goes for women, kids, dogs, and cats.
pope dilbert:
FINE then Give me what is mine and I will care for them. No. it doesn't work that way. You produced them, you pay for them. Your past deed is what makes you responsible - not your current, personal whims and desires. For all we know, they were taken away from you because you abused them. That abuse makes you an unfit parent, but does not absolve you of financial responsibility. I don't pay people to burn my life down. Your children did not burn your life down, yet you would punish them for it. Sounds like maybe you were an unfit parent. Laws are made to be broken. I am not bound to obey an unjust law. and you, as an individual, are not the determining factor on what makes an unjust law. No; you are not bound by it any more than any other criminal - but you will pay the penalties. If it don't live in my house I am not supporting it. That goes for women, kids, dogs, and cats. Then you will pay the price, somehow. You keep whining about how unfair this is to you. I feel nothing for you, but I do feel for your kids; the victims of your obsessive selfishness.
obo:
No. it doesn't work that way. You produced them, you pay for them.
unless your a women who can abort or have them adopted.
Your past deed is what makes you responsible - not your current, personal whims and desires.
unless your a women who can abort or have them adopted. or if thats too much trouble put them in a dumpster
For all we know, they were taken away from you because you abused them. That abuse makes you an unfit parent, but does not absolve you of financial responsibility.
unless your a women who can abort or have them adopted. or if thats too much trouble put them in a dumpster.
Laws are made to be broken. I am not bound to obey an unjust law.... No; you are not bound by it any more than any other criminal - but you will pay the penalties.
unless your a women who can abort or have them adopted. or if thats too much trouble put them in a dumpster
If it don't live in my house I am not supporting it. That goes for women, kids, dogs, and cats...Then you will pay the price, somehow.
unless your a women who can abort or have them adopted. or if thats too much trouble put them in a dumpster.
pope dilbert:
True. I never said I liked the system, or thought it was fair; only that there is no way to be completely fair to everyone involved.
....unless your a women who can abort or have them adopted. or if thats too much trouble put them in a dumpster Now you're just getting sick..
rmj:
True. I never said I liked the system, or thought it was fair; only that there is no way to be completely fair to everyone involved. True, but it can be fairer. If the woman has the choice of abortion or having the child and giving it up for adoption without financial obligation, then why not some similar rights for the man. First, the right to parenthood: the father should have the right to take custody if the woman chooses adoption. For most states men do not have this right. Second, the right to quasi-abortion: the father should be able to say he is unwilling to be a father. If the woman goes ahead and has the child, then the man would not be financially obligated.
michael:
You don't think the government wants to be fair do you? It is the government taking your money, not the x wife or kids.
Joni Rathbun:
On 29 Nov 2002, obo wrote: ...unless your a women who can abort or have them adopted. or if thats too much trouble put them in a dumpster Rule #1: Never reproduce with a man who didn't pay attention well enough in school to know the difference between your and you're and woman and women.
michael:
No. it doesn't work that way. Then it doesn't work.
You produced them, you pay for them. Non sense. I pay for the next 3 that comes along with the next woman....When the woman leaves with the kids I am absolved of financial responsibility.
Your children did not burn your life down, yet you would punish them for it. Sounds like maybe you were an unfit parent. I am punishing no one. If any of them wish to come home, including the woman, I will resume care.
...and you, as an individual, are not the determining factor on what makes an unjust law. I am the only determining factor in my life. I live by MY morals not the law.
No; you are not bound by it any more than any other criminal - but you will pay the penalties. Only by going to jail and costing the government $20,000 a year to keep me and a few more to care for my present family.
Then you will pay the price, somehow. You keep whining about how unfair this is to you. Nothing in life is fair. But if we still had a constitution they could not put you in jail for not paying a debt. It is against the law. But the constitution is long gone and dead. We are now a confirmed socialist Democratic country. Welcome to the U.S.S.A!
I feel nothing for you, but I do feel for your kids; the victims of your obsessive selfishness. It would be the mother that makes the victims by removing them from a protected environment. Beside that What makes Kids think the parents OWE them. The only debt to the child is to keep it alive until it can do for itself. No where in that do I see, "buy me a car" or send me to collage. Though I do these things it is not to pay a debt but a free gift of love.
BrettG:
....No. it doesn't work that way. Why it doesn't work that way is the interesting part. Would you care to elaborate on that, rather than just continuing to assert the status quo?
....You produced them... Now that I would like to have seen. Do you have proof that Michael gave birth to the child(ren) in question?
Erica:
I personally think that men should have some type of say so when it comes to abortion. I know that we endure all the pain and suffering but, the baby is still their baby also I felt that we should respect their opinions and views.
Bob:
Kids and puppies are cute and fun to play with. And If it is in my house I feed them. But when a woman screws me and then screws me out of my children, Home, car, furniture and packs up pussy to leave, she gives up any right to my protection or money. For most of human history she had no right to take a man's children from his home. That "right" is a radical feminist change only during the most recent century. It destroys families and hurts children. She ought not have that right still.
The feminazi law gives all right to women and no rights to men these days. Men need to take back our families by whatever means necessary. Women get all the rights. Men get the obligations. Its totally sexist.
wf3h:
Women get all the rights. Men get the obligations. Its totally sexist. when men can get pregnant, they'll have the same rights.
rmj:
A woman gets pregnant and the father has no options; he will likely pay child support for eighteen years. That he was unwilling to be a father is not considered. A woman gets pregnant she has rights and no responsibilities: she can have an abortion; she can have the child and put it up for adoption--and have no financial obligation toward the child; she can abandon the child at a hospital--and have no financial obligation; she can keep the child and raise it herself; she can keep the child and sue the father for child support.
Bob:
It's really a political decision. Other cultures have made other political decisions. Our culture is heavily biased toward women so women get all the "rights." It doesn't have to be so.
pope dilbert:
There is a reality basis behind it too. Notice that the previous comparisons do not make any distinctions between a baby and a fetus. If a woman decides to give birth, the man shares some of the responsibility - he has little to say about that responsibility. When a woman gets pregnant, the man has no duties or responsibilities, he shares none of that burden. The system is, by no means, fair .. and I see no way of making it fair to both (eventually three) parties concerned.
Bob:
....If a woman decides to give birth, the man shares some of the responsibility - he has little to say about that responsibility. That's the current western political decision. Women decide, men are responsible. Women get, men pay. It isn't a fundamental decision of nature, just a political decision. Other cultures have made other decisions and ours could do so too. Women, to be equal, need to be held responsible for their own decisions. Blaming the nearest available man for a woman's decision is sexist and unfair.
....When a woman gets pregnant, the man has no duties or responsibilities, he shares none of that burden.
She only has "a woman's right to choose" whether to bear a child. It's her decision and her moral responsibility for her decision.
....The system is, by no means, fair... and I see no way of making it fair to both (eventually three) parties concerned. Fair would be for each person to be responsible for his or her own decisions. Fair would give equal rights and equal responsibilities to men and women.
michael:
Fair is getting government out of it. Women are in control of their Body now. If they choose to have a baby, it is hers alone. If she leaves you she automatically gets the kids and the house with no courts involved. The man gets the cars the dog and a pat on the back. He don't pay child support or alimony. There is no Welfare check from Government.
Bob:
Today's laws are a radical feminazi social experiment that has failed utterly to improve the society or save the children. They are the culmination of a century long feminist effort to destroy families and make men slaves to women. For the protection of our children men need to take back the government and the law by whatever means necessary. Storm the Bastille! Break out Lady G.
pope dilbert:
....Fair would be for each person to be responsible for his or her own decisions. Fair would give equal rights and equal responsibilities to men and women. Impossible.
Bob:
Its only impossible if men let feminists run the government as they do now. ....when men can get pregnant, they'll have the same rights. Yea, that's the usual misandrist (sic) hate speech. We've heard it ten thousand times before from the usual sexist bigots.
obo:
oh you mean if we don't fancy keeping the child we can just abort it?
wf3h:
you bet. when you get pregnant, by the way, you be sure and let me know about that.
Society:
Nice try at equivocating what's natural with what's artificial law and technology, wf3h. When a man can get pregnant, only then will he be unable to walk out on the baby whelper and the sprog. Ta, ta!! [n.b.: a "sprog" is British slang for a baby]
BrettG:
The time to decide whether a woman should have your baby is before sex. If you don't do it then you have no rights.
This is (mostly) true, but it is a morally indefensible situation none the less.
michael:
Just my personal opinion. What a man and a woman give each other in sex is a gift from each to the other. If she chooses to use that gift to have a child that is wonderful. I would never ask for it back or custodies of the child. Nor would I tell her what to do with the gift I gave. How ever I did not give her a gift so she may black mail me later. If she becomes unable to care for it, give it to me and I will care for it until she can or the rest of it's life.
pope dilbert:
An "American" FIELD MOUSE has more "reproductive rights" than us STUPID men. --John Knight Yo! Moron! This is one of those issues where there are absolutes. Either the man gets his way, or the woman gets her way; there's no "in between". So your stupid comment: "if you are an "American citizen", you have NO reproductive rights." applies either way Now, if YOU opted to be pregnant instead of the woman .....
***
My own commentary:
In my view, truer words were never spoken than those of rmj, who asserts "the right to "quasi-abortion", whereby "the father should be able to say he is unwilling to be a father. If the woman goes ahead and has the child, then the man would not be financially obligated."
Although rjm speaks as though the right to quasi-abortion does not yet exist (more on the recent lawsuit filed by Matt Dubay asserting just this right in Part II of this diary), it is precisely the right to repudiate fatherhood that has been exercised by men since the dawn of human history. There's a lot going on in the thread above, but the most devastating thing is the squirming these men do in order to dress up their grotesque repudiation of all pretense at emotional attachment, empathy, decency, or responsibility whenever either "the pussy walks out" or they themselves kick the pussy out. What you see here is a total projection of their own self-disgust, onto women: I'm rubber, you're glue, and everything bad about me bounces off me and sticks to you! These men choose abortion -- choose to renounce fatherhood --but they don't want to own up to their choice. So they foist their choice onto women. After letting a woman know in no uncertain terms that he is uninterested in the entire subject of fatherhood, then "if the woman goes ahead and has the child," she's on her own. But woe betide the woman who makes the same choice as the guys do: then, in that case, abortion is all the woman's responsibility, all her moral culpability, and all her fault. On her own head be it.
The fact of male "quasi-abortion" is perfectly reflected in the findings of the Guttmacher Institute that "[o]n average, women give at least 3 reasons for choosing abortion: 3/4 say that having a baby would interfere with work, school or other responsibilities; about 2/3 say they cannot afford a child; and 1/2 say they do not want to be a single parent or are having problems with their husband or partner. Take these reasons apart, and you find the common thread among them all: babies cost. Women have abortions because without supportive men, women can't survive nor can they keep their children alive and well.
Don't be fooled by the "michael's" of the world, with their noble offers to raise their own children if the mother cannot or will not. "If she becomes unable to care for it, give it to me and I will care for it until she can or the rest of it's life," "michael claims. But as much as he claims a willingness to care for his child, there's a quitclaim attached: If it is in my house I feed them. But when a woman packs up pussy to leave, she gives up any right to my protection or money....If it don't live in my house I am not supporting it. That goes for women, kids, dogs, and cats. And, of course, he decides who will live in his house. If he doesn't want "it" in his house, then out "it" goes.
Women have abortions only after men have abortions first. The real pro-abortion advocates are the men who want the freedom to have sex with women and then set them adrift. They want the unfettered right to choose not to be fathers. They want abortion to be perfectly legal, common as dirt, and utterly without moral consequence. But only for them.