Saturday, October 25, 2008

A man's got to know his limitations.

Recently, I was called out for being male and being pro-life.
"... did i mention how creepy i find it when MEN are over-zealous pro'life' campaigners/preachers."

The implication was/is that a male had no business voicing anything with regard to abortion, since it's an issue (only) affecting women.

But ...
  • I don't think you have to have children to be against child abuse.
  • I don't think you have to have a pet to be concerned about the treatment of animals.
  • I don't think you have to have a wife to be against spouse abuse.
And I don't think one has to have a uterus in order to enter the conversation about protecting human babies from violent death, though it probably doesn't hurt.

Labels: ,


At 25 October, 2008 20:21, Blogger Jade said...

As the saying goes, it takes two to tango. The responsibility of that child falls both on the man and the woman. If a woman reasons that she alone is free to end the life of the unborn child because it is her body, then what about the sperm of the man that brought about the fertilization of her egg? Is it not the life she carries in her body also part of his body? How is it that he should not have any say or any responsibility for the life of this unborn child?

It's ironic that a woman cannot give a child away for adoption lawfully without the consent of the father (while he lives). And yet it is fully the decision of the woman alone to end the life of her unborn child.

At 25 October, 2008 20:33, Blogger GUNNY said...

I didn't realize that about the adoption bit, Jade, that's quite an eye opening inconsistency.

Thanks for enlightening the blogosphere.

At 25 October, 2008 20:48, Blogger Jade said...

Well, I'm not a lawyer. :o) But it was my understanding that the validity of the adoption is in question if the biological father did not consent to the giving away of his child. This is why adoption centers insist that the father is in the wagon on this, otherwise it can cause upheaval to the adopting parents down the road, if the biological father so chooses to bring them to court. It is my understanding, the biological father will win the custody of that child.

But I'm sure the pro-choice advocates will argue that as long as the unborn child remains within the body of the mother, it remains to be the "property" of the mother. But I say, what about the sperm that fertilized the egg? Is that also her "property"?

At 26 October, 2008 08:15, Blogger Lance said...

The thing people often overlook is the effects abortion has on the father, too.

Having "experienced" a miscarriage, I hurt with my wife. She did not suffer alone.

If indeed we want to minimize abortions, why?

Because they leave guilt and scars with the woman . . . and perhaps the man, as well.

At 27 October, 2008 15:46, Blogger brandi said...

My opinion:

I think abortion is just a girl's way of NOT having to face the results of her actions. To those people they are also pro-life, just their life and not the life of the child. I think that's what really defines the abortion issue. Who's life is more important.

If God is sovereign, and He is then how can the blessing of him giving you a child become YOUR "choice"?

I wish abortion wasn't so easy to get.


Post a Comment

<< Home

Photobucket - Video and Image Hosting