In the dialogue about abortion in the US, the pro-life side (of which I am a member and have been all my life) naturally stresses the position that life in the womb is entitled to protection. The pro-abortion side (which prefers the moniker “pro-choice”) stresses that a woman’s right to choose to keep or terminate a pregnancy trumps the right to life of the unborn child.
I’d like to explore another side-issue to all of this. I am not suggesting that what follows has not been discussed, but I think it takes a back seat to the arguments above, and I think it should be called out more often and stressed much more than it is.
Abortion advocates state that birth control, backed up by the safety net of abortion, “liberates” women from being sexually stifled and allows them control over the use of their bodies and their reproductive cycles. What this means in the language of the street is that they are able to have sex with whom they wish, when they wish, and they are able to eliminate the consequences of that act, namely the conception and carrying of an unwanted child (notice never is it said “an unwanted clump of cells” but when they want to stress the impact to their lives they use the term “child”).
Further, many abortion advocates argue that since a woman’s body is hers and hers alone, a man has no right to any say in the abortion debate. It takes a man to make a woman pregnant, even in the case of artificial insemination, but once they have performed this function they are to have no more say than a drone bee has in a bee hive (drone bees are driven from the hive once the queen bee has mated. Bee hives are run by females).
What is interesting here is that, for an immature male who enjoys using women as sexual objects, this kind of a scenario is absolutely ideal. The woman is completely responsible for reproduction. The man has no responsibility at all. He can feel free to have sex with her with absolutely no consequences attached. If he’s at all gallant, he may pay for ½ the abortion cost should a pregnancy occur. She has the invasive procedure which terminates the growing life inside of her, and often the procedure causes damage to her insides. The man walks away scot free. He is not faced with marriage, years of child support, or even helping her recover from the abortion procedure.
I have known males in my life who fit this category. One boy I knew got a girlfriend pregnant while in college. They chose abortion. He went on to marry another woman and have a successful career and a family. He was able to walk away from this and go on with this life. I don’t know what happened to her. I do know what happened to the unborn child.
It seems that what birth control backed up by abortion has brought to women is the opportunity to be just as irresponsible as some men can be when it comes to their sex lives. But by assuming – demanding – that they have full control over their bodies, they give men who are irresponsible a very easy out.
Nature does not change. Women are still the ones who are on the receiving side of the sexual act. They are the ones who get pregnant, not men. They are the ones who have to go through an abortion procedure, not a man. Their bodies are still the ones which are put through the trauma and which are at the mercy of the abortionist.
As a man, I can understand how this scenario above works and works well for a man who likes to use women for pleasure and who wants no commitment or responsibility. He can do as he pleases and go on to the next conquest.
What I don’t understand is how this appeals to a female. In the past, if a man got a woman pregnant, he was expected to take responsibility. With this new “liberation” she lets him off the hook completely. She still has to pay a cost in her own body and in her psyche.
Is all that the sexual revolution gained for women is the “right” to use their bodies irresponsibly as do some men?