(Log in info) This is an opinion piece in my local paper the Charlotte Observer. It’s written by a woman, Avis O. Gachet, who is a book dealer in Hickory, NC. Her opinion is that men have no right to weigh in on the abortion debate because we don’t give birth. May I say to Ms. Gachet how incredibly sexist I think that is. Men take place in half the creation process so why shouldn’t we have half the say?
Let me tell you a story that I haven’t told you in many years. About 11 years ago a girl whom I had just broken up with told me she was pregnant and that it was mine. Which I don’t doubt. We were using protection but, as the left doesn’t like anyone to point out, no protection is 100% foolproof. She told me not to worry because it was an ectopic pregnancy. At that time I was ignorant in such matters. She told me that she just needs to have a simple procedure to have it removed and that it wasn’t really a baby. Lie #1. She told me that she had scheduled her procedure and then had to reschedule. Lie #2 because I found out later that with ectopic pregnancies they take you into surgery on an emergency basis. So as it turns out she was legitimately pregnant and had an abortion behind my back. She never asked me if I wanted to keep the baby. It was never an option for me. At the time I had been with the same company for 7 years so I had a steady job with decent income and great health benefits. I would have been more than willing to provide for my child. Again, I was never given the option. I was not abusive towards her. I have never been abusive towards any woman. She just didn’t want to have a baby but again I, the father of the child, had no say in the matter. I was willing to be solely financially responsible but that “choice” was taken out of my hands. So Ms. Gachet not only is your opinion that men should have no say is not only sexist it’s incredibly arrogant. You come off sounding like the stereotypical angry feminist who thinks that all men are irresponsible pigs whose only goal is to impregnate as many women as possible and avoid all the responsibilities.
I also have to take you to task for some of your reasoning in your article. In your article you state…
Did I ever face a demanding husband who wanted unprotected sex when we could not provide for one child, much less six or seven — or maybe 13? No. Did I have to deal with a damaged pregnancy with the long-term prospect of an ongoing caretaker role for which I was inadequate? I did not. Was I a victim of my father’s incestuous behavior — perhaps when I was 12? No. Was I battered in pregnancy because my drunken husband found me an unattractive sex partner? No, I was not.
You act like every unwanted pregnancy is due to some kind of unwarranted sexual attack. You’re almost saying that a woman is too good to allow herself to get pregnant if she doesn’t want to. If that was the case we wouldn’t even be having this discussion. And when you say “did you have to deal with a damaged pregnancy with the long-term prospect of an ongoing caretaker role for which you were inadequate?” smacks of eugenics. First of all what do you consider a “damaged” pregnancy? You make it sound like it can only be the husband’s fault for unprotected sex. To coin a very cliched phrase it does in fact take two to tango. Does a woman not bear any responsibility for an “unwanted” pregnancy? You also talk about not being able to financially provide for a child. So by your logic if I can’t afford to take care of a loved one that is an invalid I should just have them killed?
Another quote I take issue with is this…
Should legal abortion be left up to the individual states? No. A battered, impoverished wife should not have to fly to Wyoming because her home state would not allow her to terminate a flawed pregnancy. These are the United States, after all.
While I can sympathize with the plight of battered women as I have witnessed it firsthand your argument is flawed at best. So what you’re saying is if a woman is battered and poor she should terminate the pregnancy even if the pregnancy is viable? Not to mention that even if certain states were to outlaw abortion I think that your example of the battered wife would be an extreme minority of the cases crossing state lines. The majority of those who would cross state lines would be those looking to kill their unborn children as a matter of convenience which is the ultimate act of irresponsibility.
Many want to eliminate birth control — except by self-control and voodoo. If you doubt that, just ask them.
My that’s a broad generalization. I have no desire to have birth control eliminated but again it has to be said that the only true way to prevent pregnancy that doesn’t involve any act of killing is to simply not have sex.
The zealots attack the clinics and demonize everyone whose views are not their own, often using outrageous language and illegal tactics.
Isn’t that what you’re doing right now?
Throughout you’re entire diatribe you neglect to mention the alternative to abortion that benefits everyone. Adoption. So many people are out there for whatever reason can’t conceive their own children and would love to give a newborn child a home. Yet you feel like it’s almost an obligation for women to kill their unborn child. And this isn’t coming from some kind of religious standpoint either. It’s coming from the viewpoint of an adoptee who is grateful that I’m older than Roe v. Wade.
I feel sorry for you that you have such a wanton disregard for life and such a blatant prejudice against men, religion, and adoption. I’ll pray for you.
Follow Trench!