A New Kind of Abortion…For Men:
[Thanks to reader David Reeve, we can introduce the so-called financial abortion.]
According to Catherine Deveny, the financial abortion “(also known as a paper abortion or a statutory abort) would essentially enable men to cut all financial and emotional ties with a child in the early stages of pregnancy.”
The financial abortion would allow a man, after having impregnated a woman, to disavow his responsibility for the child, to “opt out of fatherhood early in a pregnancy”.
It’s not clear what incantation the man would have to recite to invoke the financial abortion—perhaps chant “Me Not Thee” in the presence of the mother and an independent witness thrice. Whatever it is, after the spell is said, the father would lose forever all legal rights to the child, leaving all decisions, burdens, and joys of the child to the mother.
Typically, a man is on the hook for his actions. At the very least, a man will incur financial obligations for his offspring, even if he wants no contact with the child or mother. On the other hand, a mother can usually, without consulting with or securing permission of the father, kill the life inside her.
To some, this imbalance between the sexes grates. Deveny says “it’s not fair for a man to be forced to become a parent.” She quotes Mel Feit, director of the National Center for Men:
Women now have control of their lives after an unplanned conception but men are routinely forced to give up control, forced to be financially responsible for choices only women are permitted to make, forced to relinquish reproductive choice.
A Swedish political group even introduced male abortion legislation, which was rebuffed. This went beyond a financial abortion; the law would have allowed fathers to have women they impregnated undergo forced actual abortions.
The financial abortion is, of course, less drastic. Doubtless, it would be appealing to many men. If financial abortions become law, a man could theoretically impregnate any woman he wants and then back out of his responsibility without penalty, as long as he followed whatever technical rules that were in place. Deveny argues, “A woman who chooses to continue a pregnancy from which a man has opted out would do so under no illusions, and be answerable to no one.”
If someone hates their life, can they sue their mother for not choosing abortion? Or maybe a new legal form of suicide can be called “late stage abortion revision”. There are so many variations we really need to try out. Swear words and piercing is so juvenile and last century. We’re the real adults. We know how to treat life like an abomination.
Many men decide to do the “abortion” post-birth, and are known as “deadbeat dads.” They really are at the vanguard, and once the laws catch up with sanctioning their behavior, the sky’s the limit.
Catherine Deveny: “I believe a woman should not be forced to become a mother any more than a man should be forced to become a father.”
It seems that my definition of “mother” and “father” are different than hers. She has no trouble decoupling a few minutes of pleasure from a few months of maternity, but is utterly incapable of divorcing maternity from a lifetime of motherhood. Not too surprising, as one distinction serves her purpose, the other does not.
I decided years ago that arguing Pro-Life versus Pro-Choice was pig-wrestling – go ahead if you enjoy it, but don’t expect to accomplish anything. It all comes down to when human life begins, a subject that is never approached honestly in an argument over abortion.
I agree with the person who said that the key is “changing hearts and minds”, starting with the young. Hence I concentrate my support in organizations such as Center for Bio-Ethical Reform (CBR). I find it interesting, and perhaps instructive, that some Pro-Life groups dismiss CBR’s tactics as counter-productive.
You have to wonder how many abortions are decided upon either by the father or because of the father anyway. But you really have to wonder why other people stick their dumb dirty little noses in other people’s private lives in the first place. There must be something very wrong with those people.
JMJ
The envoking of the issue of privacy with respect to abortion is, and always has been, a red herring. Where is the concern for privacy in the case of a mother smothering her unwanted baby (which is the English word for fetus, I think) one minute after delivery instead of dismembering him one minute before?
Yep. Let’s keep all killin’s in the family. None o’ the guvmint’s bidniss.
Red and cricket, those responses show you do not begin to understand the issue. You put the dumb in dumb dirty little noses.
JMJ
No im not dumb your dumb. (Hey this is fun!)
Jersey McJones logic:
“You have to wonder how many wife killings are decided upon either by the husband or because of the husband anyway. But you really have to wonder why other people stick their dumb dirty little noses in other people’s private lives in the first place. There must be something very wrong with those people.”
“You have to wonder how many honor killings are decided upon either by the patriarch or because of the patriarch anyway. But you really have to wonder why other people stick their dumb dirty little noses in other people’s private lives in the first place. There must be something very wrong with those people.”
“You have to wonder how many gang killings are decided upon either by the gang leader or because of the gang leader anyway. But you really have to wonder why other people stick their dumb dirty little noses in other people’s private lives in the first place. There must be something very wrong with those people.”
This can go on ad infinitum.
wonder why other people stick their dumb dirty little noses in other people’s private lives in the first place.
Of course, this begs the question.
Of course your prolly dumb too.
It’s always been the truly superior people able to decide just which killings are properly private matters.
All men, too! All dumb men.
JMJ
JMJ,
Quoi?
Unless of course that’s an admission.
You make another keen argument there Ms. McJones.
Pingback: This Week in Reaction (2016/12/11) - Social Matter