Sunday, March 12, 2006

Choice for men?

The logic of making "choice" central to morality is unravelling further.

For years we have been told that a woman has a right to choose whether or not to become a mother, and that for this reason abortion must be allowed.

Now in America a man is arguing in court that he should have a similar right to "choose" whether or not to become a father.

It seems that the man was misled by a sexual partner who told him that she was infertile. The man is claiming he should have no liability for the child which resulted from the relationship as he never chose to have it.

The court case has put pro-abortion women in a difficult position. One liberal, pro-abortion woman, Lindsay Beyerstein, has argued that men should continue to pay for unwanted offspring on the following grounds:

If you know that you might become a dad whether you like it or not and you have sex anyway, the consequences are your problem.

Anna Winter, an Australian left-liberal, read this argument and blanched. For obvious reasons. After all, if applied consistently, doesn't it also suggest that women who have sex knowing that pregnancy might result should also live with the consequences?

So Anna has taken a different approach, and argued that both men and women ought to be able to opt out: women through abortion and men by having a right to disown a child (in certain circumstances). She writes:

I do have sympathy for the idea that men should be able to choose parenthood, and that "if you don't want to get a woman pregnant then don't have sex" is not an acceptable response ...

... should there be room for an opt-out for men who find themselves potential fathers after one-night stands or in situations where they have already made their wishes clear? Yes, it would be an enormous, morally difficult choice. But if we are to argue that women are capable of considering such huge, life-altering issues, then is it hypocritical to deny men the same level of respect?

So Anna is willing to let the state, rather than the father, pay for a child's upkeep, to keep consistently to the principle of "choice" in morality.

The question then becomes: will the state be willing to pay?

I doubt it, and therefore the Beyerstein double standard is likely to continue, in which men are told that it is morally wrong not to accept the consequences arising from sexaul relationships, whilst women are told they have a right to choose whether to live with such consequences or not.

From the conservative point of view, it is the whole approach of trying to decide moral issues on the basis of "choice" which is wrong and which leads to such outcomes, in which one woman argues for a blatant double standard, and another, in order to be consistent, accepts the idea of men disowning their own children.


  1. This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.

  2. The modern woman's thoughts generally add up to:

    "A man's opinion/decision on his offspring is secondary because he is not the child's mother, nor gave birth to it. However, his financial obligation is greater because no woman gets pregnant by herself."

    This 'convenient' logic (like so much other marxist/feminist un-thinking) invariably contradicts itself. The fact of feminism is that it doesn't want 'equality' - but rather preference to females over (& often in spite of) males.

    They fail to see the 'cause-&-effect' nature of instituting an idea. You cannot give women rights, and then disallow them to men.

    Err... weren't MEN suppose to be the sexist ones?

    The current example of abortion & a 'woman's right to choose' - where the first, last & only real decision is a "Female's point of view" is ludicrous.

    Lets face it - men only get the children women want them to have. From the pill, to her undisputed right to terminate an unborn baby. She has the final say.

    It's a win-win situation for women. She can get an abortion without the father's consent. A father is legally obliged to pay child support for a baby he didn't want because his 'choice' didn't matter. If they divorce he pays child support for children he rarely sees. She 'legally' owns the child, but the father 'pays' for it. This is (as far as I've discovered) the only 'convenient' contradictory point of law that is accpeted without a blink.

    Basically, in our present marxist/feminist culture (comrades) - it doesn't look good for men.

    The latest demand is for "Government Funded Daycare" - which I'm sure you've all seen debated in the recent years. Basically, the ladies want the taxpayer to pay for rearing their child (8hrs a day, 5days a week), so mommy can go to work and earn money like the boys. Not only does this benefit ONLY those women who chose to go to work (& expect us to pay for it), but it's rediculous for the taxpayer to pay 8 to 12,000 dollars a year for a child's daycare space so the mother - who pays perhaps 1,500 dollars a year in taxes - can be a contributing member of society.

    Demanding money be thrown towards every feminist responsibility (& mistake), is simply teaching nothing more than avoidance of one's choices. If feminists & liberals wish to 'create' their own destinies - then I think the first step is to pay for the consequences of those choices. NOT weasel out from under them & treat it as a national issue that we all have to 'chip-in' for.

    If abortion is, as the feminists would have you believe, a matter of a woman having control over her own body, then I think a public demonstration of a woman willing herself to become 'un-pregnant' or willing her fertilised egg to detach itself from her uterine wall would settle the issue once & for all. Of course, a woman has no more control over her reproductive functions - apart from abstinence - then she has over the colour of her eyes.

    A choice from men?

    Well - apart from remaining celibate - it's a minefield.

    I, for one, have hung up my 'minefield' walking boots.