Friday, October 7, 2022

It is the woman's choice

One of the rallying cries of the pro-choice movement, one that galvanizes the empowered feminists is the cry "To abort or not-abort is the woman's choice"...and only the woman's.

As I read Michigan's Proposal 3, I don't see anything in the language that prevents the father of the fetus from demanding the mother get an abortion. Demanding and GETTING, because there is strong language in the proposal that NOBODY can be denied.

All it would take is for a father to demand the abortion, the mother to refuse it and then the father taking it to court. If the judge believed we have too many people on the planet or if the judge was getting hammered for child-support (or one of his children was), he would be likely to take an expansive view on the ambiguous language of Proposal 3 and it sets a precedent.

One of the problems with legislation that does not go through the meat-grinder of committee, two houses of the Legislative Branch and then signed by the Executive Branch is that very few eyes look at it in a critical way.


  1. we need to decide:
    If a woman owns the (yet unborn( child ("my body my choice) then they get to decide...and men have no say and no responsibility.

    Nor, however, should the State have nay responsibility to feed, clothe, and house that woman's "property".

    Or, men have the responsibility and therefore the choice as well.

    Pick one direction and accept the good and bad parts, Can't have it both ways though.

    1. Even if the man didn't directly participate in the fertilization, he is still on the hook for child support.

      See for example the "Drake's hot sauce condom" story, or the Kansas lawsuit seeking to collect child support from the donor.

    2. There are arguments to be considered for both directions. There are no valid arguments for having it "both ways". Yet it *matters* which way, to many who see the other way as "evil" for reasons not *easily* dismissed. This needs to be rationally deliberated, not with an eye to what is the utopian "correct" direction, but with an eye to *reality*: what are the results of each way, and what are the costs, and can we afford them, and if so how?

    3. The argument for having it "both ways" is that the child support is NOT for the mother, but for the benefit of the child. So child support is intended for the father to be financially responsible for the child he helped create, so that society in general doesn't have to be. The law is smart enough to realize that in most cases, the mother will not be able to be financially responsible by herself, particularly when burdened with having to raise the child. So who is next best responsible? The father. That is reality. The law is not designed to force the death of the child just to avoid financial responsibility. It may allow it on the part of the mother, but it isn't going to allow the father to insist on it.

    4. It appears you miss the point. That is not an argument for both ways. (I've yet to hear one)

      Of course child support is "for the child". Clearly the mother is unavoidably responsible for at least the first 9 months of the child, which is why it is argued she has a say in choosing abortion or not. (one can argue she "chose" this risk by having sex, hence the "rape" exceptions often cited) If the father can also be expected to be responsible, what argument is there to exclude him from any say in the choice of abortion or not? *That* is the "having it both ways" scenario.

    5. When both parents agree on the course of action, there is no problem. Agreed?

      The problem is when they disagree on whether to carry the child to term. Our legal system is designed when there is disagreement.

      If the mother chooses abortion and the father doesn't, the system allows the mother's choice to dominate. This relieves the father of the financial responsibility. So this is not weighing the life of the child against the financial burden, it's weighing the mother's desire for a child. The mother's life is almost 100% going to take the hardest hit on keeping the child. That is reality. The few exceptions are rare. The father is free to try to talk the mother out of it, and make arrangements to minimize that hit, so they do get a say. It just isn't a veto power.

      But if the mother chooses the child, the courts will not allow the father's desire to avoid financial responsibility trump the life of the child. You can't demand a medical "hit" on the child to avoid paying money.

    6. Now you've broadened the scope beyond the "both ways" case, that may be too complex to debate here.

      Some will argue that killing an unborn child is a problem even when both parents agree to do so, since the child has no say, and is not of age to consent. If the father is such a person, killing his child will not make him happy even though it relieves his financial responsiblity.

      So you're arguing that is both so, and rightly so, that a father cannot demand a "hit" on the child to avoid paying money, but that a mother *can*?

      My only point here is that this issue can be quite complicated, but there should be *no* compications or difficulties faulting hypocrisy *everywhere* it raises it's ugly head. Double standards are an affront to truth.

    7. Re your 3rd paragraph: Because the hit on the mother is far more than just financial. But for the father, child support is purely financial. So there is a huge difference between what is at stake for the mother as opposed to what is at stake for the father. This is why the mother gets the veto vote on abortion. The mother's decision is far more than just to "avoid paying money."

      This argument only makes sense if abortion is a legal option. So your 2nd paragraph starts with an irrelevancy. And an unborn child is unable to consent to anything, so that is just nonsense. The parents need to make the decisions for that unborn child. What matters are the rules that determine the legal options for those parents. I certainly don't want the government to be making the individual decisions ... its role ends at setting the legal rules for those options.

      It's only double standards if both parties are in the same position. But they aren't.

    8. Many fathers care about their progeny, so it's not just financial for them, as they feel moral obligations that can be maddening.... but your points are valid, it's not the same, men don't get pregnant. There is also a difference between "having a say", and "having a veto".... but again you make a good point, inserting government is usually a "solution" that causes more problems than it solves.

      What I will say is this. It's complicated. There is no "general consensus" among the general public. It's controversial, and as such government has no business subsidizing it, and it rightly should be solved as locally as possible, parents, then family, then community, then county, then state.

  2. One of the other problems with legislation in Michigan are the sodomists in Lansing that influence the legislation.

    Pray for them; to convert, to repent, and to work to undo the evil they have wrought.



Readers who are willing to comment make this a better blog. Civil dialog is a valuable thing.