Letters to the Editor
-
Such silliness obscures the real issue for men
The right to disavow parenthood should be both the man and the woman's right (only for unwed couples).
No one should be able to force a woman to have or to not have an abortion, but neither should men be forced into indentured servitude for 18 years.
The man should have the option of, essentially, aborting his parental rights and responsibilities, during the first trimester.
-
Abortions For All (I mean only for women)
From the article, "...seems to border on narcissism." More than enough of that to go around Catherine. If a couple has a baby together they have a baby together, if she has an abortion.... well i guess you're saying she's on her own. So men shouldn't be emotionally detached, but of course men should be emotionally detached.
I agree that Jesus doesn't need to be brought into it because Jesus isn't real, but of course emotions and babies are, which means ripples are rippling. Even though you say you believe men have emotions Catherine it is hard to believe you really believe so based on your sarcastic tone. There are ripples Catherine, everyone feels them. The ripples bring us together; sex is a ripple, abortions are a ripple, sarcasm is a ripple.
Let's say it again: 'Men shouldn't be emotionally detached, but of course men should be emotionally detached.' What is more amazing is how emotionally detached you seem to be with regards to the uterus, Catherine. If you really love your uterus and other's uteruses maybe it would be okay to suggest that sticking blades up there isn't the best idea ever. Oh yeah, and wear a condom, or don't have sex with creeps just to add another chapter to the book of exciting promiscuous adventures.
Reading Broadsheet is like getting a trapped in a one-dimensional world; truly not broad-minded at all.
-
Rights belong to the child
The man should have the option of, essentially, aborting his parental rights and responsibilities, during the first trimester.
Except that the rights to support and parentage (in some capacity) belong to the *child*. You can't unilaterally terminate rights that belong to someone else.
-
So, wait...
...this guy is a Christian counselor, and has gotten 4 women pregnant (or one woman pregnant 4 times, or whatever) with babies they weren't prepared to carry to term? Wow. Sounds like he needs to do some deep soul-searching, or at least restrict his sexual life to women who share his beliefs about abortion.
-
Yes it is silliness, but not that way
I am a man. And, I ALWAYS have the option of using a condom, getting a vasectomy, or saying "no" to sex. This is my protection from becoming a father against my will. If you have unprotected sex, then you are giving your consent to possibly becoming a father. Anything else is stupid, irresponsible, or ignorant.
At the same time, there is a culture of men who deny being fathers. Men who punish their children due to anger at the mothers. And, men who think having lots of children is a sign of virility.
BTW, there is a mistake in the post...
"I think few people would argue that the decision to have an abortion is a serious one, and that it carries the possibility of regret."
I think few people would argue that the decision to have an abortion is NOT a serious one.
-
The man's side
Men can’t physically have abortions, but this article does bring up the man’s side of the whole business. What if the man wants to keep the baby? In general, it’s assumed the woman will keep the baby. It’s assumed, even if the man wants the baby, the woman will be forces to care for it and raise it. If a man were willing to take all the rights and responsibilities for the child, should the woman still be allowed to abort it? (assuming there’s no health risk to her.)
I wonder . . . if men could stop abortions by becoming the sole guardian to a child, how many would take that opportunity. It might lead to a rash of single fathers, and wouldn’t that do interesting things to society.
-
We
When my wife was pregnant, on more than one occasion, a nurse, midwife or birthing coach reminded us that my wife is not in this alone, that "we" do it together, and that "we" both are pregnant, in labor, etc.
I'm sure the word is used in birthing to help include the father and instill a sense of ownership on the process. Although not anti-abortion, I can't really object to extending the concept to having an abortion if it's going to continued to be used in the way it was in our case. As you note, "we" don't have an abortion, but use of the pronoun in that sense is just as valid as use of it in the other aspects of child birth.
-
contradiction
So a child has the right to have his father pay child support, but does not have the right to be born? The child support system is so screwed up. I know someone who had a kid with a girl, and the girl is now married, but he STILL has to pay child support. Makes a lot of sense.
-
Re: KitchenGirl
"Except that the rights to support and parentage (in some capacity) belong to the *child*. You can't unilaterally terminate rights that belong to someone else."
KitchenGirl, it's fairly clear that you're anti-choice. And here is where my conundrum lies: I cannot see any way to have a discussion about abortion with you, or anyone who shares your beliefs. Lemme 'splain.
You see, when my girlfriend and I had our/her abortion in October, there was not much to it, apart from all the state-mandated rigamarole (24-hour waiting period, etc.). She was at 6 weeks and so qualified for RU-486. Some severe cramps and heavy flow that, according to her, were on par with a bad period were the only result.
Now, to us, we felt relief when it was all over. Relocating to California _and_ finishing up law school _and_ finding a job _and_ studying for the bar during the timespan of 9-months pregnant through 2-months-born was not an option for her. It made things easier. So again, we both felt relief.
Now to you, we are murderers (I presume a little bit here). No different than two people who meditated in advance on the crime, and committed it in cold blood. At the very minimum, we deserve jail sentences on par with those others who commit first-degree murder.
How do we ever reach any kind of middle ground here? Because as I see it, only pro-choicers even _see_ the middle ground - for the vast majority of those opposing choice, it's just wrong, end of story. How can this issue even be discussed, without both sides just talking at each other?
Care to comment?