Letters to the Editor
-
re: johnfairfax
John, the letter writer may have stated that a little too strongly; sure, he could have used a softer modifier like "not quite the same level of" instead of "none of." But really, does that make him a "cold-hearted bastard"? He was trying to make a point, and we all state things a little stronger than reality when we're trying to do that. He wasn't completely off base either. Of course in the case of a miscarriage, for one, in addition to the physical pain, the woman will feel profound guilt and self-hatred (not really the right word? somebody help me) over the fact that her body has failed her in such a basic primal way. The man will feel grief over the lost child, as does the woman, but not the personal sense of failure. So, John, I'm just trying to say, I would be much harder on you if I thought you meant what you said, but I think you're just coming across a little harsher than the nice person that I'm sure you are. Come back and post later when you're feeling better.
-
A man's right to choose, an insoluble problem
I'm writing because I feel that everyone is treating an intensely gray issue as if it were black or white. I despise a man who considers his responsibility to end with impregnation. There's just something wrong with a fellow who can get a woman pregnant (or at least HELP get a woman pregnant) and then walk away as if it had nothing to do with him. The man's share of the responsibility for the child-to-be begins at conception, when it is only a potential child, and even if there's doubt he's the father. He should do his best to create an environment that will help the child. If, for example, the mother is malnourished, and he could have helped, he's fallen down on his job. And he needs to do whatever he can to reduce the mother's stress, if their relationship permits that. A man doesn't have to go through anything like the discomfort, awkwardness, emotional rollercoaster and down-right pain of pregnancy and labor, but that doesn't mean his role is easy either. Any woman who's helped another woman through it, especially if she herself had not (yet) had a child, knows this. The point here is that the CHILD is theirs, not just HERS, if it comes to term, and the pregnancy is as much his responsibility as hers, even if she gets almost all the problems. My point? That SHOULD mean that the man has a say in whether the child is kept to term or not. In other words, the man should have some right to choose, but the circumstances of pregnancy mean that the woman's rights trump his. So, I agree that, if it comes down to it, it is the woman's decision and hers alone. But it is by no means FAIR, and the message it sends to men is not a good one. I will always support the woman's right to choose, but I will never like the fact that comes at the expense of all the man's rights.
-
Can't wait for men to get pregnant...
As a woman who is seven months pregnant, I say Right On! There is no way you can imagine how it feels to be pregnant, until you are. As far as the gentleman reader who suggested modern technology will take care of the fact that women carry babies, I say fantastic -- I really want my husband to carry the next one. Nine months, almost a year, of no alcohol or sushi, not to mention nausea, leg cramps, heartburn, decreased mobility, ligament pain and a totally strange feeling of weirdness and fullness in your uterus (or whatever pouch they'll carry their babies in), hemmorids, leaking breasts, etc. I love my baby, and gladly carry her --- but for some man to tell me how I receive preferential treatment because I have a vagina that I am going to push an eight pound baby out of is ridiculous. If women really had preferential treatment in the country, we'd all have paid maternity leave and real childcare options, and mothers wouldn't be the lowest paid of the corporate ranks. What a bunch of cry babies. A man shows a little sensitivity to females and another man needs a blankie.
-
Control
I'm not quite sure what the potential men's "control over reproduction" is that Big Whoop is referring to in his letter. But it seems to me that men have control over reproduction in the form of condoms.
-
How about this???
Any woman that has a child out of wedlock is 100% legally responsible for the welfare of that child.
-
A-MEN!
That is all - I appreciate you bringing this short and sweet reminder of humility and humanity to our attention.
-
A Man's Right to Choose...and Pay
To me, it's not really a question of giving men the power to force an
abortion...that would just be insane. It should absolutely be the woman's choice whether or not to actually give birth, for all the very good reasons already sited. The issue should be the man's ongoing involvement. If she wants it and he doesn't, that's her call. But the man should be able to then extricate himself from the situation if he so chooses. He shouldn't suddenly be forced by the state to pay child support for the next 18 years.
There are those who will say that he should of thought of that before having sex, he needs to be responsible for his actions, etc, but to me, that's totally unrealistic....so if I'm a man who doesn't want children (or to pay for them), I can't ever have sex again? There is no recourse for men in this situation. Let's say a man who doesn't want children decides to have sex with a woman who didn't want them either, and they had discussed all this with each other in advance. If she gets pregnant and changes her mind, the poor guy is still on the hook even though he did everything he could to prevent it, short of joining the priesthood and devoting himself to a life of celibate worship.
Bottom line: Women should always have the power to control their own bodies and whatever is growing inside it, but once the baby is in swaddling clothes, men and women are back on equal ground. I believe good-hearted men do have a moral obligation to help the mother financially raise the child regardless of whether they wanted it, but that's just me. This forced garnishing of wages is totally unjustified as law, and isn't at all fair.