Abortion: Why Not

Updated: Jul 27


The idea that abortion is an evil necessity is, I think, flawed at the outset. I don't take this position based on religious views- I can't- but out of simple practical views. The way that we view abortion currently stems from the concept of "her body her choice." This concept is underpinned by the assumed idea that each person has bodily autonomy over their own person which just about everyone within our society agrees with- until we don't. The same people who will argue that a woman should have the right to abort her pregnancy for any reason are the same people who will insist that the man involved in the pregnancy not only has to respect her choice, but pay the consequences thereof when the choice is made.

My contention with this idea is that the choice occurs before pregnancy, and in many instances is a layer choice where the ability to avoid pregnancy is but a short turn away. Let's look at a simple example that we see at times in popular culture- the one night stand with an "oops."

A woman and a man both decide to to go to the bar (choice number one) and drink (choice number two). I list these as separate choices as going to the bar is seperate from reducing your ability to make rational decisions through the consumption of adult beverages. One can go to a bar or club and not drink- as a dry man myself, I can attest to this being a real thing. So here, we have two points where a potential pregnancy can already be averted- don't go out and don't get hammered. Or, if you'd like, go out and meet people- but keep your whits about you so you can make rational decisions.

The first two choices gone through, the woman and man in this scenario then begin to talk and show interest in one another (choices three and four). If at any time the woman doesn't want the man, she has every chance to stop talking and go to the next guy. By showing interest, she is communicating that the dude in question has a chance to get lucky. Alcohol imbibed and inhibitions reduced, showing interest in both direction creates a situation wherein the really important decisions need to be made.


Guy says, "Hey- you wanna come back to my place for a nightcap?" The woman has a decision to make. Either A) give in to the fun and excitement of the night and go back to his place, or B) politely decline and go back to her place at the end of the night without any hanky panky, maybe giving him her number and saying we should go out sometime. Chances are, if the inhibitions have been reduced, option A is more likely to win out, and if more sober, option B has a greater chance.

Now, in this straw man- option A is taken (choice five) and the young lady and the young man retire to his place. At this point more choices are brought forward- stick to petting and making out, go all the way, use protection. These are all viable "choices" that can be made, and when the inhibitors are turned off or muted, the chances of making a rational decision based on the possible long term ramifications are almost impossible.

All these choices made- the deed is done and suddenly you have "Knocked Up." Now, the lady has another choice. Stick with the guy, or stick it alone. The reason I didn't include "abort the baby" is two fold. First, she had all those other points wherein she could have made an abortive choice without the baby ever factoring in and the life of another never being on the table. Second- she's entered the realm of "consequence," as has the man.

Allowing her the sole authority over the life and death of the baby ignores "his body his choice." What if he wants the baby, but she wasn't an abortion? What if she wants to keep the baby, but he wants nothing to do with it? In either case, the bodily autonomy of others is ignored for hers. This is an unfair and untenable position to hold for a few reasons.

Ignoring the individual autonomy of anyone is tantamount to creating a servile being- in this instance the man. Second, ignoring the individual autonomy of an individual can allow for them to be othered and "gotten rid of"- in this instance the baby. In either case, the woman's bodily autonomy is "preserved" at the expense of others, and this is a deeply illiberal position to take. There is no equity, no equality, and no respect anywhere in this equation, and as a result, no truly fair outcome can be reached.


The idiocy with this position however, ignores the females autonomy almost entirely by obviating the respect their bodies demand. Removing the consequence of pregnancy and parenthood removes the single greatest motivator to avoid pregnancy in the first place and allows men to chase and sleep with women at their leisure. Don't want to be a mom? Get an abortion. This not only reduces the woman to nothing more than a play thing to be chased and used, but disrespects her own bodily autonomy by neglecting what makes her special in the first place- her ability to gestate life.


The idea of “my body my choice” degrades men and lowers them to simple funders of the female. Imagine, if you will, that you have to suddenly pay for not only your expenses, but the expenses of two additional people. This is the possible outcome for a male should he get a woman pregnant. If the man in question is sanguine about such an issue, then it’s moot. When it’s not a moot issue is when the male doesn’t want to be responsible for the child and woman, and is forced by the woman’s choice to contend with this issue financially.


This idea can be brought into sharp focus when we think of predatory women- yes, they exist- who will use a man for his ability to provide for them against his will. I’d like to say that this isn’t a thing- that women are super awesome and would never do such a thing- but it’s not so. Especially when you’re listening to a safety brief by a woman as she tells you flat out that women who supply condoms could be putting holes in them to rope you and your hard earned government backed paycheck into their pockets (really- this was a safety brief I sat through in the Marines). This is doubly worse for a service member as they WILL be forced to support the child and the mother even if they never spend another day with them their entire lives- the DoD will ensure as much.


Women can, and do snag financial and material support from men who want nothing to do with them via the consequences of one night stands. They use parenthood as a snare, and it’s completely legal, though questionable in the morality department. Men, by and large, have little defense against this in many instances, and can even be charged back dated child support if they fail in their obligations.


Now, I’m not arguing that men shouldn’t rise to the occasion to support children they sired- real men don’t have to be coerced into doing this. What I am saying is that slanting the law in such a way that women can use the law to trap men into financial obligations they don’t want to be entangled in is a form of legal entrapment with almost zero consequences for the woman.


But limitless consequences for the children involved. Fatherless children are far more likely to grow up into lives of crime, drop out of school, and do many other things that we don’t want children to do. Fathers in the home are a boon to every family, and women who would pursue pregnancy as a means to create income at the expense of the children’s fathers and the children themselves are a stain on our society that deserve no respect or assistance. Yet, how do you deal with these situations when they arise? The pro-death person will say abort the kids before birth. The pro-life person will advocate for adoption or enforcing the creation of a family unit.


In no place does the pro-abortion argument benefit anyone. It strips men of their roles as men and fathers, allowing them to be womanizers with less risk of becoming fathers. It strips women of their dignity by allowing them to be chased and used in such a manner, with their role in the reproduction cycle being completely ignored. It degrades children by reducing their value as people before they are even born, and at times even after when they become nothing but pawns in the game of using the system. It degrades the basic unit of society- the family- by allowing fatherless children to grow up to become childless fathers or mothers to fatherless children themselves.


This cycle isn’t one that can last, nor should it. We cannot continue this degradation of peoples value if we intend to remain a society worth protecting. To turn women into chattle, men into irresponsible boys, and children into pawns and expendable biomass will spell the death of what we have. To abort this abortion of a policy, we must adopt a pro-life stance. Enforce the worth of women in society, value the lives of those yet to be born, and ensure that men act like men and not worthless weak pleasure seeking pseudo-men. It’s a tough bill to sell, and most if not everyone will want to just keep things “easy” so they can have a little fun. To do anything less would be irresponsible, and lead to far more pain than just assuming the mantle of mature adult could ever lead to.


Battle Specter, out.

15 views0 comments

Recent Posts

See All

Change Requires Tests...

In the most recent episode of The Rambling Devil, I touched on where I've been the last week, but there was one thing I left out because it didn't effect me recording anything. That thing is- we got a

Let's Be Frank...

In the most recent Saturday Special, I posited something that I think may be taken out of context, or misunderstood by people less versed in the intricacies of intercultural interactions. Simply this-