Conservative Men and Abortion

[notMichaelJackson]

Why is it that conservative men always seem to put 100% of the blame for unwanted pregnacies on women? After reading comments from conservative men such as "a woman has the right not to have sex," " a woman has the right to keep her pants on," and "women to be virgins until they are ready to take responsibility for their actions," I wonder where the men fit into this. Aren't they at least 50% responsible? Even moreso if they are the ones pressuring women into sex? Any thoughts?

 

[SavedByGrace3]

Originally posted by notMichaelJackson
Why is it that conservative men always seem to put 100% of the blame for unwanted pregnacies on women? After reading comments from conservative men such as "a woman has the right not to have sex," " a woman has the right to keep her pants on," and "women to be virgins until they are ready to take responsibility for their actions," I wonder where the men fit into this. Aren't they at least 50% responsible? Even moreso if they are the ones pressuring women into sex? Any thoughts?

Absolutely! Ever heard of a shotgun wedding? Of course with today's permissive attitude, it is no longer considered a social faux pax to get a girl pregnant and then leave town. Today it is the rule. Do you think girls getting pregant and the guys leaving them reflects the position of a liberal or a conservative? Who created and has successfully pushed this sexual permissiveness? It was not Christians. It was not conservative men.  

Unfortunate situation... unwise decisions.

 

[Risen Tree]

It takes two to have a baby. 'Nuff said.

 

[RevKidd]

I have not read or heard where conservative right wing christian conservative men are proclaiming that it is only the womans fault, and I am not saying that they are not...  But being a conservative christian male I have to say that both parties are equally to blame for the conception and also if that conception leads to an abortion. 

Unfortunately the Idea of "Feels good do it" is rapping Americas young people and young adults of there morals and values.  IMHO MTV is leading the charge, along with stations like E!.  They are promoting lifestyle of fornication and homosexuality as morally and sociably acceptable.  The debauchery that they parade on TV is planting seeds  into the minds of our people that is going to reep a harvest of that of Sodom and Gomorrah.  S&G not only committed sexual sins but also many other sins that involved there own selfishness that is prevelant in the media today.  Hollywood is not helping out either with movies like American Pie, and What about Mary. 

You want to know why abortions are up, just flip through your channels on your tv and you will find out.    

 

[seebs]

I dunno, NMJ. While I'm trying to think about it, could you explain to me why it is that liberals always place 100% of the blame for an unwanted pregnancy on the child? Oh, wait, that's *not* your position? What a strange coincidence, that was gonna be my answer too.

 

[Job_38]

I don't know. I see it as a fault on both. But do not make the mistake of putting all the blame on conservatives, because that is wrong.

 

[Outspoken]

"Aren't they at least 50% responsible? Even moreso if they are the ones pressuring women into sex? Any thoughts?"

depends, sometimes its all the women, or most, sometimes its all the man, or most. It depends. both share some blame always though.

 

[Matthew9:9]

I certainly don't place all of the blame on women.

But let's take a look at one reason why some people might -

If a woman gets pregnant, it is usually due to the actions taken by both parties (unless the woman did something deceitful to deliberately get pregnant, which I can only assume is an extremely rare thing).

After the woman is pregnant, if she decides to "keep the baby," the father is equally responsible for the baby's support. However, if the mother decides to "terminate the pregnancy," the father has under the law absolutely no input into that decision.

In the past, men were guilty of forcing women to "terminate" inconvenient pregnancies. Today we see what an injustice that was. Yet today the mother forces her baby's father to allow the pregnancy to be "terminated." Even in cases where the father has begged to be allowed to raise the baby himself rather than allow it to be "terminated." The man has no recourse. The child becomes both parents' responsibility if the mother wants "it." But if she doesn't want it, then the father has no rights. 

It seems that we have gone from one injustice to another. In my opinion, we could do one of two things to rectify this and share the responsibility:

1.) If the mother decides to keep a baby that the father doen't want, he should be legally able to abdicate all parental rights and not be forced to pay support.

or...

2.) If the mother wishes to "terminate" the baby, the father should have the legal right to have the mother carry the baby to term, at which time he would adopt it or allow another couple to adopt it, allowing the mother to abdicate all parental rights and not be forced to pay support. And for the father to be equally responsible financially for whichever the choice is. 

Another "fair" option would be -

3.) The father should be able to petition the court to force the mother to terminate the pregnancy if he doesn't want the baby.



Of course, I consider option 2 to be the optimal solution. I don't like options 1 or 3, but at least they are equitable solutions as opposed to the disposable role to which men are relegated under the current system. 

If one parent has a right to decide that the baby must be "terminated," then both parents must have the same right. And if one parent is allowed to decide that the baby must live, the same right must be accorded both parents.

Of course, those who feel that the life (or death) of the child is solely to be considered "a woman's right to choose" will think I'm totally wrong-headed. Women can't have it both ways: either the man is equally responsible or he's not.


 

 

[Outspoken]

I believe the OP was an exersice in building strawmen?

 

[Texas Lynn]

Abortion is nothing new. No one created the abortion rate; the sexual revolution is mostly just a communications revolution.

If we were serious about reducing the abortion we would empower girls and women and provide access to quality sex education. Europe does and their rates of teen pregnancy are much lower than ours.

In fairness, conservatives don't so much as 'blame" women for unwanted pregnancies as they want them to suffer for having them. They've won elections based on "traditional values" and want to continue to do so. In reality it's a low priority issue for all but a handful of them.

 

[seebs]

Many conservatives don't so much "blame" women for unwanted pregnancies as "provide the sperm" for unwanted pregnancies.

 

[Matthew9:9]

Originally posted by Texas Lynn
If we were serious about reducing the abortion we would empower girls and women and provide access to quality sex education.

"Empower" is a very catchy buzzword, but just what the heck do you mean?? There's more needed than just some silly self-esteem programs which seem to be all the rage. (My 9-year-old boy came home last summer with a CD called "Girl Power" which had some lovely little non-sexist ditties such as "Girls rule, boys drool.")

We should teach our girls to be able to exercise restraint and to be strong enough to say "No!" We should treat their mothers with the kind of healthy love and respect we want our daughters to grow up expecting from a man.

And we men need to be strong, caring presences in their lives. We need to be a bulkwark against a confusing world and a beacon by which to navigate confusing territory while providing the freedom to learn.

I'm also confused by your reference to "quality sex education." I thought that the campaign to shoehorn the most Liberal sex classes into every school had been mostly successul. (i.e. - http://www.parentsrightscoalition.org/Fistgate.htm)

 

 

[seebs]

I think a lot of modern sex education is of very low quality. It's not that it's "too conservative" or "too liberal", but that, in the two or three different versions I saw or heard about, there seemed to be nothing at all that the kids could respect or take seriously. The end result is a lot of kids believing a lot of silly stuff.

I do think that there's a very serious underlying social problem in how we treat sexual behavior in adolescent boys and girls - in particular, that we treat it so differently.

Actions speak louder than words; we *say* the boy shares in the responsibility, but then we treat the girl as if she was the only one involved, quite often.

I would love to know what percentage of abortions in teenagers are directly tied to parents who have said they'd kick the kid out if she got pregnant. It may be only a few, but at least, there, we could point to something concrete that the parents could do to prevent an abortion: Don't threaten your kids like that.

 

[Texas Lynn]

Originally posted by Matthew9:9
"Empower" is a very catchy buzzword, but just what the heck do you mean?? There's more needed than just some silly self-esteem programs which seem to be all the rage. (My 9-year-old boy came home last summer with a CD called "Girl Power" which had some lovely little non-sexist ditties such as "Girls rule, boys drool.")

Parents and others should encourage girls to develop independence, assertiveness, self-esteem, and self-assurance.  Certainly some of what is being experimented with is asinine but it's a work in progress.  Taking your daughter as an example, i would hope you would or will encourage her at age 18 to live on her own rather than remain under your roof or else get married, if this is what you would inculcate in a son.  If it's not what you'd inculcate in a son either, get into counseling immediately!!!

We should teach our girls to be able to exercise restraint and to be strong enough to say "No!" We should treat their mothers with the kind of healthy love and respect we want our daughters to grow up expecting from a man. And we men need to be strong, caring presences in their lives. We need to be a bulkwark against a confusing world and a beacon by which to navigate confusing territory while providing the freedom to learn.

No disagreement here.

I'm also confused by your reference to "quality sex education." I thought that the campaign to shoehorn the most Liberal sex classes into every school had been mostly successul. (i.e. - http://www.parentsrightscoalition.org/Fistgate.htm) 
 

I'm familiar with the story on the link.  I'm also convinced it's out of context and an aberration and that the "watchdog" who reported it is a paranoid schizophrenic.  Don't believe the hype.  In the Southwest at least teachers tread lightly in this area.  What you call "liberal" sex education I'd more likely call "realistic".

 

[Matthew9:9]

Originally posted by Texas Lynn
[Europe's] rates of teen pregnancy are much lower than ours.

 

This might be also related to their "persistent drop in fertility."

See "Persistent Drop in Fertility Reshapes Europe's Future" at <SPAN style="FONT-SIZE: 12pt; FONT-FAMILY: 'Times New Roman'; mso-fareast-font-family: 'Times New Roman'; mso-ansi-language: EN-US; mso-fareast-language: EN-US; mso-bidi-language: AR-SA">http://www.nytimes.com/2002/12/26/international/europe/26FERT.html</SPAN>

<SPAN style="FONT-SIZE: 12pt; FONT-FAMILY: 'Times New Roman'; mso-fareast-font-family: 'Times New Roman'; mso-ansi-language: EN-US; mso-fareast-language: EN-US; mso-bidi-language: AR-SA">The article points out, "Contraception and abortion are more readily available. Divorce is more common."</SPAN>

<SPAN style="FONT-SIZE: 12pt; FONT-FAMILY: 'Times New Roman'; mso-fareast-font-family: 'Times New Roman'; mso-ansi-language: EN-US; mso-fareast-language: EN-US; mso-bidi-language: AR-SA">Even the Pope is concerned, "That sense of alarm was reflected in Pope John Paul II's first-ever address to the Italian Parliament in November. The pope said 'the crisis of the birthrate' in Italy was a 'grave threat that bears upon the future of this country.' "</SPAN>

<SPAN style="FONT-SIZE: 12pt; FONT-FAMILY: 'Times New Roman'; mso-fareast-font-family: 'Times New Roman'; mso-ansi-language: EN-US; mso-fareast-language: EN-US; mso-bidi-language: AR-SA"></SPAN>&nbsp;

<SPAN style="FONT-SIZE: 12pt; FONT-FAMILY: 'Times New Roman'; mso-fareast-font-family: 'Times New Roman'; mso-ansi-language: EN-US; mso-fareast-language: EN-US; mso-bidi-language: AR-SA"></SPAN>&nbsp;

 

[Matthew9:9]

Originally posted by Texas Lynn
Taking your daughter as an example, i would hope you would or will encourage her at age 18 to live on her own rather than remain under your roof or else get married, if this is what you would inculcate in a son.&nbsp; If it's not what you'd inculcate in a son either, get into counseling immediately!!!

Counselling? Who said anything about my&nbsp;"inculcating" such ideas in any of my children? Of course I hope to give all my children the tools to enable them to live healthily on their own, making good decisions.

I am familiar with the story on the link.&nbsp; I'm also convinced it's out of context and an aberration and that the "watchdog" who reported it is a paranoid schizophrenic.&nbsp; Don't believe the hype.

"Don't believe the hype"?! I have a copy of the tape of the lecture in question! Even the people who gave the lecture don't deny that it happened - just that they didn't think it was wrong!

(And there you go once again, diagnosing people who disagree with you as having mental problems.)

&nbsp;

 

[seebs]

I don't think the drop in fertility is comparable to the teen pregnancy issue. If you look at teen pregnancy in the U.S., it has demographic qualities which suggest it's got nothing to do with fertility rates.

 

[Matthew9:9]

Originally posted by Texas Lynn
What you call "liberal" sex education I'd more likely call "realistic".

Are you certain? I'm all for sex education, I just don't think that teaching children about&nbsp;"fisting" with graphic language and witty personal anectodes is&nbsp;part of an appropriate program.

(And before you accuse me of anything else, I do believe that homosexuality needs to&nbsp;be covered in a sex ed program, and not in a denigrating or condemning way.)

&nbsp;

 

[seebs]

I would have to say, I don't think that's part of any *program*; perhaps some teachers have done such a thing, but frankly, I'd need to see additional sources before believing such a thing - I've seen too many people swallow Onion stories whole.

 

[Malachi383]

My thoughts as a fairly conservative Christian male:

I place more blame on men than I do on women.

For centuries, men have objectified women. For centuries, we have wronged women inuncountalbe ways. As you read through covenant history, husbands continually fail their wives. Whether it be Abraham looking to a servant girl, or Adam failing to stand up for his wife to the serpent. Whether it be heirams or adultery or simply failing to protect the women around them, men have continually failed miserably.

As men, we are called to protect and watch out for women. This is embodied in the caretaking role in marriage. It is out of love of Christ and love of our sisters that we should do this.

First of all, we fail them through premarital sex. Then we fail them through not supporting them. And then, we sit by allow them to have an abortion, or sometimes force them to. (Granted some fight for the child) Often times, men drive women to the clinics. They sit by and allow that child of God whom they have supposedly professed their love to with their body to be poked, proded, and violated in unmentionable ways, not to mention that the child, which God entrusted to them, to be killed. That is a serious failure as a man.

Now I am not discounting a woman's role. Some "dress to kill" to attract men, compete with other women, etc. Others sell themselves to men, whether through prostitution, inappropriate contentography, they way they dress, the way they act, what they say, where they work (in a strip club, etc) and in so many other ways. It is a tragedy that such beauty is being sold to the lusts of men. A quote that I find applicable is that "we will continue to sell ourselves until we realize we are priceless!" And many do so willingly.

I think in some ways we are all blameless. For unless you have devoted yourself to the pro-life movement, and you sit idly by as it happens, then your inaction can even be considered partially to blame. It falls under the sins of omission.

Sex ed belongs in the CHURCH! SEX IS INHERANTLY RELIGIOUS! GOD CREATED SEX! So why would we want it taught by secular, public figures? Can they truly teach the children of this world what sex is about, so they truly value it, or will they hand out condoms and instruct them on how to avoid getting a disease? Do you really think that they can truly discuss the value of chastity and celibacy until marriage? Do you really think that they will uphold the Christian view of marriage- UNTIL DEATH DO US PART, as well as a total, faithful, free, and fruitful gift of the self? If sex is inherantly religious, and inherantly Christian, then why would we want to trust the secular world in teaching it? Shouldnt we rather push for it to be taught from the pulpit? Not just kids need to hear it. But EVERYONE! So many people are misguided and wandering, seeking this very truth. And yet many preachers and pastors dont want to because it is to controversial. Well guess what, that which is controversial needs to be taught the most.

We are called to be a sign of contradiction. We are called to hold high standards, and set the bar high, and not comprimise that which we know is right. As such, I am proud to be considered a conservative Christian male. And I pray that I can do justice to what the true and godly meaning is. And I pray for His strength, and His will, and His love, that I may be a conduit of them for others.