A Father's Right To Choose
By Cathryn Crawford (04/25/03)
In the circumstance of abortion, the decision is made for or against by one person: the mother of the child (forgive me, the fetus). When a woman or finds out that she is pregnant, and decides to have an abortion, she is by no means beholden by the standards of the pro-choice crowd to seek advice on the subject or to inform anyone of her decision. As a matter of fact, she is encouraged not to seek counseling, unless it is from a Planned Parenthood sanctioned clinic, and she is most certainly not encouraged to tell her parents or the father of the baby (forgive me, the tissue).
The main argument that the feministic pro-choice crowd holds is that it’s the woman’s body; therefore it’s the woman’s choice on what to do or what procedures to have performed on it. It is said that if a baby (forgive me, group of cells) is not at a viable age (and there are some who think it should be this way up to the point of birth), the woman has every right to decide if the child is wanted or not.
There are so many issues that entangle the pro-abortion/pro-life argument that it would take years and many more words than I could ever write to list. However, there is one issue that you almost never hear mentioned by either crowd.
What about the father?
Is it really “the woman’s body”? After all, it takes two people to make a baby (forgive me, a pregnancy) and it would seem logical that if it takes two separate things out of two separate people to create one specific thing, the thing that was created, whether you call it a baby or not, would be part of each. I have never heard of a woman creating a baby out of nothing but the chemicals and organs in her own body, so the argument that it’s “the woman’s body” fails to hold up under logical scrutiny.
And so, if you follow the reasoning of the pro-choicers, if it’s the woman’s body, then it’s the man’s body, too. And, if it’s the man’s body, that would mean the man would have the “right to choose” as well. And so, if a man wanted to terminate the pregnancy of the woman who was carrying his child, it would be all right, since the glob of tissue is part of his body. And so, now that we have thought this through, the position taken by NOW this week saying that Scott Peterson should not be charged with the murder of his son makes sense. After all, as Morris County NOW President Mavra Stark said, “If this is murder, well, then any time a late-term fetus is aborted, they could call it murder.”
How true.
If the woman has the right to choose, I believe the man should, as well. And so, perhaps NOW is right. Maybe Peterson was just choosing what to do with his body when he made the decision to kill his son. Of course, for the murder of his wife, Stark says he should be “strung up”, but that’s different. That was a woman, his wife, not his very own flesh and blood. He had no right to kill someone who did not have his genes, who did not have some of his features and perhaps would have walked the same and talked the same as his father. He had no right to kill her.
But he did have the right to kill his son.
I’m absolutely serious. If NOW wants to use the argument of “my body, my choice” then it is illogical and intellectually dishonest for them to deny the same right to the father, as well.
Perhaps we should have a new movement among men who find their pregnant wives and girlfriends to be an inconvenience to their carefree lifestyle; perhaps it should be called “my body, my choice.”
Oh, wait, that slogan’s already taken.
(Printer friendly version) Email: Cathryn Crawford
