Abortion
Every time a woman uses the term ‘women’s rights’, is there a question in your mind what she is referring to? Most of the time, the topic refers to the right of abortion, at least that seems to be the current shiny bauble that captures the attention of women that are looking for something to babble about, the only problem is that their position seems to be caught in the 1950’s.
The real question is whether there is a need for abortion other than as a talking point for women activists that have little else to offer. Here’s a test, listen to an activist and cross off all the insults and name calling and see what you are left with, most of the time it is very little because liberals have very little to offer besides denigration of the opposition.
Consider the FACTS in play so that the discussion can be brought into the current century. Currently, there are a variety of birth control options for both sexes, some are pills and others are inserts but they are almost 100% effective. In addition, there is a morning after pill that stop any oops that made it past the other control options. So, the real question is simple: Why is there a need for abortions if the pregnancy can be stopped before conception or the morning after? With all these options, wouldn’t it be a simple matter to make the decision of getting pregnant before the intercourse and then accept the outcomes – back to personal responsibility and decision consequences.
Here’s where it gets contradictory for the women demanding abortion, the abortion option needs to be available in case the threat of the pregnancy does not work. What could this possibly mean? When a woman consents to intercourse knowing that the proper precautions have not been taken, could there be an underlying reason for hoping that a pregnancy occurs? This is the interesting part of the discussion, the woman had every opportunity in advance to provide the needed birth control and didn’t, then knowing the condition took a risk with a potential outcome of pregnancy. Any intelligent person would have considered the viable outcomes:
- they wanted to have intercourse but did not want to have a child – birth control
- they didn’t care about the intercourse, but a child was off the table – birth control
- they did not want to have intercourse, and a child was off the table – birth control
- they wanted to have intercourse and wanted to get married – no birth control
- they wanted to have intercourse but wanted to apply pressure – no birth control.
It seems that when one considers the options, if a child was not desired then the intelligent and smart choice would have been to implement the birth control option, this way it does not matter what happened then there is no need to have an abortion. On the flip side, if birth control is not being used and the intercourse partner does not know this, then the motive should be considered. No matter what the women declare in terms of ‘women’s rights’, there is a need to understand the motive behind the decision.
As a member of male gender, the question posed should be one of timing: before intercourse doesn’t the woman have all the rights? The first right is the decision to include birth control in the preparations. It is fair to consider that if a woman has been on any birth control regiment or device then this should not be an issue unless the decision was made without partner input to change the conditions. The second right is the decision to engage in intercourse, no matter what else is said, forced intercourse is still rape, consent is required. Speaking for every decent male, non-consensual intercourse is a crime.
Perhaps the time has come to have both parties stop before intercourse and complete a legal agreement as to the condition of consent. That way is either party claims later that they were forced, no reason to go any further.
So, when a woman talks about ‘women’s rights’, do they have any clue what they are talking about? Based on the previous comments, the woman has all the rights unless the intercourse is forced, but rape is not the issue. If the woman decided in advance to have a child, then there should never be an issue of abortion because the pregnancy will proceed to the birth of a new human being.
The issue is that if a woman has decided in advance to not have a child, then there should never be an issue of an abortion because the needed steps can be taken immediately to ensure that the pregnancy is avoided. However, this requires fore thought and intelligence, with the ability to make intelligent decisions. If this condition is missing, then why does this person believe they should be allowed to make a life and death decision about another human being?
The desire is to confuse the issue of personal responsibility with a social failure and permission to murder to overcome the failures of the partners to protect the sanctity of life. All of the steps that can be taken to avoid pregnancy fall with in the realm of personal responsibility, making decisions in advance and dealing with the consequences of actions taken. There is no personal responsibility if all of the consequences from failed or forgotten decisions are negated with claim of ‘rights’.
The concept of ‘rights’ is a two-sided coin. Anyone that accepts the concept of abortion has failed to recognize the flip side of the coin because they have assumed that the fetus has no rights and that the woman, who is incapable of making intelligent and timely decisions, has the right to make decision for both individuals. Of course, these liberals are of the opinion that the fetus is not actually a human being but there are, once again, problems with this position. Medical science has proven that a fetus can feel and react. Here’s the interesting part, the construction of a human being from the zygote at the moment of conception is a mind boggling job and includes levels of engineering and construction beyond the grasp of the woman, and yet these women feel that they can make an intelligent decision after the fact of failing to make an intelligent decision.
The concept of abortion is no longer about women’s rights, it is all about personal responsibility and intelligent decision making. Being a failure at making intelligent decisions does not provide an excuse to correct a poor decision using murder. Let’s go back, there are too many birth control options to believe that this is a valid excuse, and, second, there is a morning after pill to make sure that the failures of the previous encounter do not result in a pregnancy. Even with all of this, some women fail to avoid the pregnancy or fail to decide earlier. Back to the question of motive and why? An abortion should never be permitted when the only reason is a simple: “I forgot” or “The father refused to marry”. If women want rights then they must also accept responsibility for those rights and the murder of a fetus is not accepting responsibility, it is shifting the responsibility to society for allowing some women to be allowed to make intelligent decisions.
Needless to say, none of these comments refer to any woman that has been the victim of sexual abuse or rape, society has failed to be violent with these offenders in the same manner that they were violent with the victims. However, that goes both ways and if a woman makes a claim of violence that was false then punishments must also be inflicted.