Interesting Talk from K-Lo, and Some Thoughts on "Choice for Men"

In a recent piece on National Review discussing the so-called "Roe for Men" campaign, Kathryn Jean Lopez says:

"Roe v. Wade not only takes the life of the unborn child, but it also tempts the natural father to kill off his instinct to protect and provide for his children," says Kevin Burke, associate director of Rachel's Vineyard, a post-abortion-healing ministry. "Beneath the legal arguments, we have to ask this man, 'regardless of the circumstances of her conception, your daughter now lives, breathes and walks this Earth. How can you still reject her, and withhold your love and support?'"

That's a personal matter, not a legal argument. But it's also a state of mind the culture of Roe has given birth to. "Because of Roe," as Burke puts it, "children are disposable, the gift of their lives is reduced to a 'legal issue' to be debated and decided."

Interestingly enough, that is exactly why I am so interested in the issue. Because it takes some of the ideas to their logical conclusion and shows us where the "personal autonomy above all else" mindset gets us to. Remember, now, many feminists not only want abortion to be legal, they want it to be subsidized by the state and they want their to be no moral judgment against it at all, as if it were no more than operating on a tumor. But once the woman decided she wants to keep the baby, suddenly the man is to be kept on the hook to support it. Logically, of course, if the fetus is no more than apiece of tissue, their is no reason why the man has to be responsible for it; if he disclaims responsibility before it reaches the point where abortion is out of the question, then the woman is the one who chooses to bear it and logically ought to bear all of the responsibility.

Of course, this idea might cause someone with integrity to reconsider whether or not the right to an abortion is such a hot thing. And that, rather than actually helping deadbeat dads off the hook, is why this is usch an important issue to discuss.

Not that this will actually impact many of the feminists, who are shameless in their hypocrisy. A large number of feminists (not the ifeminists, though) want to eat their cake and have it too, so they argue (among other things) that this is wrong because it amounts to putting financial pressure on a woman to have an abortion, thus taking away her "bodily integrity." So, even though men have no right to expect sex from women, women have every right to expect to be supported by men. Saying that a woman is controlling a man if she refuses to have sex with him makes a person part of the rape culture, saying that a man is controlling a woman if he refuses to give her money is common sense.

Likewise there are a lot of arguments over how, after the child is born, there is a child and its rights take precedence. But let us remember that the child was born mainly out of its mother's choice.

And then there are the largely hypocritical arguments that "the man's choice was when he had sex," all of which either dishonestly imply that the man wants to force the woman to have an abortion or which essentially ignore the fact that woman have choice after conception (like Ampersand's saying that certain arguments of "choice for men" only made sense if you assumed that all sex was female-on-male rape, in a thread where it was clear that the issue was post-conception choices). But of course, as Udolpho says, "this idea very neatly divides those who truly find abortion unobjectionable and those who just like it because it gives women whatever they want." The female supremacists at Alas, a Blog clearly fall into the latter category. (And of course, there is the issue of using "child support" as a way to punish men for not being thoughtful enough about making sure that birth control was used, which would make them howl with rage if it were applied to a female).

Nonetheless, for those who are not afflicted either of an irrational hatred for men, or who want as much sexual liberty as possible for women but who make unprincipled exceptions to keep the whole shebang from falling apart, this type of case will at the very least make one reconsider his or her view of abortion. Which is, in my opinion, the most compelling reason to take an interest in the "Roe for men" case.

That is all.