Reader-submitted essay: "The Wrong in Women’s Rights"

The Wrong in Women’s Rights
by E. Abdiel

Abortion. A cornerstone in the woman’s movement. It is a cornerstone that claims it is a woman’s sole right to decide the outcome of the unborn child inside her. Yet when this assertion is applied consistently to its end, it contradicts the arguments used to assign equal responsibility to men for the care and support of unplanned children.

Feminist ideology proclaims that what a woman does with her body should not be governed by government policy, the judgments and dictates of men, or conventional morality. A woman is to do what she wants with her body and her decisions are her own. Yet it’s simple common sense to understand that if it’s only her body and only her decision what she does with it (to abort or not abort), then congruently it is only her duty to be responsible for a decision that only she makes (child rearing). Feminist dogma stands in blatant contradiction to a simple rule of natural law that no one disputes in any other situation in our lives. And that is that there is an exact and direct correlation to the amount of authority we have in situations, to the amount of responsibility accessed to us for the decisions we make. In other words, it’s completely illogical to say it’s 100% my decisions to do as I wish with my body (premarital sex) but I’m only 50% responsible for the outcome of my decision to engage in sexual activity (pregnancy). And it’s 100% my decision what is done to my body (to abort or not abort) but I’m only 50% responsible for the outcome of that decision also (child rearing). If you are 100% in control of your body, then it’s 100% your decision to involve yourself in the risks associated with having premarital sex. And if it’s 100% your decision to keep rather than abort an unborn child, then it’s 100% your responsibility to raise and support that child after birth. Not 90%, not 75%, not 50% but rather a full 100%.

There is an ongoing trend in most feminist ideology that no one questions because it either self-servingly benefits them or because there is the very real fear of societal retaliation for speaking against it. And that is with nearly every feminist issue, women get to have it both ways. Women always receive the full benefits of every situation but never need to take the full responsibility that goes along with it. If a woman uses the rights or privileges she demands inappropriately and has to deal with the consequences of her actions, there’s always partly or fully someone else to blame. And that someone else is almost always a man.

But let me make this clear. Even if abortion advocates did take the position that it is 100% a woman’s right to decide the fate of an unborn child and also 100% their responsibility to provide support for the child after birth, I’d still argue they were wrong. Because both religion and science confirm that when conception takes place, what is inside a woman is not a lifeless mass of cells but a human being. Abortion advocates try to insinuate that the “life argument” is merely a religious one that science has yet to confirm. But science has long since confirmed that at conception a human life is created. Even scientists who are pro-choice will freely admit this when directly asked. Contrary to popular belief, faith in God is not necessary to know an embryo is a human life. And making it all the more egregious, it is life imparted by the sperm of a man. So if the sperm of a male is the life giving factor, why aren’t a father’s rights, from what is biologically half his, being represented? Why is a child only half a man’s after a woman makes a decision that requires him to financially support the child for at least 18 years but it’s not his before she make a decision to abort? In case you missed the gravity of that question and a central argument against this injustice, I will reiterate it. Why is a child only half a man’s after a woman makes a decision that requires him to financially support the child for at least 18 years but not his before she makes a decision to abort? Doesn’t ANYONE find this to be at least a little bit oppressive for him and convenient for her?

In legal circles and Constitutional terms this is a classic case of “being denied equal protection under the law”. And although the Supreme Court has consistently acknowledged this infringement upon the rights of fathers, it will in the same breath refuse to do anything about it for what it calls “the greater good of society”. Suffice it for me to say that rampant moral decline and statistical facts discrediting the Roe v. Wade decision as a source of “greater good” in society are too numerous to address at this time. Though the Court has the authority to make rulings based on the “greater good” and not “established law”, these rulings should be based in fact not personal ideology. Most importantly, being that an embryo is scientifically declared a life, the taking of it is murder. And no one has the right to take innocent life, whether they are the one who imparts life (man) or carries it to birth (woman).

As someone said it best, “Life, Liberty and the Pursuit of Happiness” --- Thomas Jefferson

It’s puzzling how they missed that. It’s the very first one.

But if abortion advocates did claim that in all situations it is a woman’s sole decision to abort a child and sole responsibility to care for it, it would at least be harder to disprove (although not impossible). It would be closer to the truth and at least a little more honorable albeit still wrong; and albeit still murder. (For a clear and concise explanation of what the actual solution should be, feel free to email me at e.abdiel7-at-gmail.com) But because they don’t claim this, it becomes obvious that their motivations are not to get to the truth or to do what is fair, but rather they are self serving, deceitful, and discriminatory in nature. There are always sacrifices to go along with the rights and privileges we have in life. So it behooves me to remind them that there is no such thing as a position that benefits you but doesn’t require an equivalent amount of sacrifice and responsibility to sustain it.

And don’t be misled by the many shrewd arguments used to place undue responsibility onto men. Pointing out a man’s willingness to participate sexually is a typical talking point used for accessing 50% responsibility to him. But there is a difference between being a “willing party” and being a “responsible party”. A man’s willingness to participate in sex is irrelevant in accessing responsibility.

Case in point: There is a woman who owns a house and a man who has purchased a large amount of illegal drugs and now wants to use these drugs in her house because he has no place of his own. When he asks her, she initially tells him no so he leaves to go elsewhere. And why is she able to tell him he can’t use drugs there? Because it is 100% her house and she is 100% responsible for what goes on there. Therefore, he has to abide by her rules.
Now the man is obviously willing to use these illegal drugs in her house. You got that? He is willing. But the fact that he is willing to do these things has no bearing on whether or not these things will occur in her home. His willingness is completely irrelevant. If she says no, it’s not going to happen. It is her decision and her decision alone on whether or not to put herself and her house at risk. So if this same woman decides at any point that she too is willing to use drugs with him in her household, it still remains irrelevant that the man was equally willing. Because the man’s willingness wasn’t the determining factor for their drug use in her home but her complete authority to make that decision was. That’s why it wouldn’t be the man’s responsibility if the police raided her home and the state government confiscated her house. No court would ever entertain the argument that a woman willingly participating in behavior that led to the government confiscating her home must be compensated by a man for 50% of her loss because he was an equally willing participant in her home. Yet the obvious correlation between this and stating a man is 50% responsible for a woman getting pregnant, when only she has 100% authority to decide what she subjects her body to, is no longer even questioned by a hoodwinked society. Being equally willing in an act doesn’t automatically mean someone is equally responsible for all the consequences that each party in a situation must face. Willingness alone is not the determining factor. The determining factors are what you have authority over, and what you are responsible for, as well as your willingness.

As someone said it best, “The presence of willingness is irrelevant when the absence of responsibility is present.” --- E. Abdiel

Some argue that a man can just as easily say no to sex making him equally responsible for the negative results. This is another shrewd but misleading argument used to try and place 50% of the responsibility upon men. Continuing with the female homeowner analogy, for a man to be held responsible for what occurs in a woman’s house would presume that he either acted through force, without her knowledge, or at least as part owner of that house. Consensual sex is not an act of force or ignorance. And the entire premise behind the whole pro-choice argument is that a man doesn’t own or have authority over even 1% of a woman’s body let alone 50%. So that rules out the “part owner” defense. The fact of the matter is, a man may be completely capable of stopping drug use in a woman’s house, but being capable is altogether different than being responsible for stopping it. This common sense and legal understanding is exactly why a man would never be held accountable in a court of law for the loss of a woman’s house for their consensual drug use. And neither should a man be held accountable for what happens to a woman’s body (pregnancy) simply because he is capable of stopping sex from occurring. Because a woman’s body is solely hers, it is only the woman and not the man, who is responsibility to stop what may happen to her. Only she is capable and responsible. Because only she has authority over what she does with her body before and after sex. Am I not only reiterating the most sacred tenant of the woman’s movement?

An argument one may use to discredit such analogies is to say that if the police raid the house, both the man and woman will get arrested. And because there is blame and responsibility placed on the man also, it proves he too is accountable just as the woman is. This is the only argument with any validity. However, it doesn’t disprove my assertions but rather confirms them. Because even though both the woman and man willingly participated in the exact same act that produced the police raid, there is one significant fact that separates these two individuals. The man chose to use drugs knowing what consequences his particular actions might cause him personally and the woman did the same. Yet if you compare the negative consequences, of similar actions, by equally willing partners, you’d see different results because only the woman is the 100% owner of the house. Therefore the man might also be arrested and punished, but only for what he is 100% responsible for in that situation; which simply is himself. Not her and not the loss of her house, but just himself. The woman on the other hand is not only responsible for herself but also the negative consequences that affected her house. Because even though she did the same act, she knowingly took a bigger risk and therefore is paying a bigger price. Because she had more to risk, she had more to lose. Yet the woman, and the woman alone, still made the decision to continue. Is it fair that the man pays a smaller price for willingly participating in the same act? Of course it is. At least we consider it fair in every scenario in life except when we reassign 50% responsibility onto men for the sexual decisions women make with their bodies.

When you clear away all the feminist rhetoric and talking points, it comes down to this: Women’s rights activists and their supporters have used the legal system to remove perceived injustices against women because they hate the fact that men biologically have less to lose for doing similar sexual acts. They refuse to see that by subverting the natural order of things, injustices are actually being carried out against men. Injustices done by laying the responsibility and blame in the incorrect place; thereby disparaging the character of all men. Injustices done by making the responsibility strictly a financial one; thereby teaching men, women, and children that the only important role that fathers truly play in a child’s life is monetary. Injustices done by only giving lip service to fathers being equally important to their children; while stripping them of every ability and right they have to be fathers. Mothers may publically say they want men to be fathers to their children but what they mean is as long as it is on their terms; financial and otherwise. Fathers may be permitted the occasional suggestion, but mothers must hold ultimate veto power. Even in the best case scenarios of joint custody, with physical custody almost always given to mothers, fathers have little to no say in their children’s protection, direction, and upbringing. This is a direct assault to a man’s pride, manhood, and natural instinct to lead. At best, women’s rights activists have used the legal system to effectively relegate fathers to have no more influence over their children than a mother’s friend, relative, or regular babysitter. And more often than not, even less influence than that. In short, they take away what truly makes him a father and a man and then demand payment for it. And then society sanctimoniously wonders why men in these situations gravitate away from their children instead of toward them.

But as with most feminist causes, they do more harm than good to those they are supposedly fighting for. The leaders of the women’s movement don’t care in the slightest that they are destroying the lives of the average woman also (or the lives of the children inside and outside the womb). That’s because the women they declare they are trying to help, protect, and empower are secondary to their cause. I will say that again because it is vital for any woman reading this to understand. Women are secondary to their cause. Secondary because they are committed to “ideas” rather than “actualities”; “agendas” rather than “realities”. Adversity and unhappiness is now the reality for most women. Studies show that most women will describe their lives as unhappy rather than happy. This is a direct result of the political, legal, cultural and moral changes stemming from the woman’s movement. But before the woman’s movement, despite certain inequities, most women described themselves as happy. But in the minds of those who support the radical ideas of the woman’s movement, the typical woman’s reality should be sacrificed for the sake of their “idea” of the way it should be.

And understand this also: When feminist supporters use the media, legal system, and government policies to consistently reassign responsibility and blame to men, it causing women to become indoctrinated into a culture of entitlement that takes responsibility and then shame off of all their actions. This is how we’ve gone from a culture where being a single mother was something to be avoided, to a culture where saying “I’m a single mother” is a source of pride; a badge of honor; an accomplishment. It is now something that is said to inspire positive feelings and preferential treatment in those who hear it. This mentality, instilled by the women’s movement, has undeniably brought about the exact attitudes that cause women to more and more likely not care if they entwine themselves in the precarious sexual situations that feminists are supposedly fighting to protect them from. Because now women feel there is little consequence, less responsibility, no shame and therefore no deterrent to cease illicit behavior. On the contrary, there are only a multitude of reasons to increase it. But what feminist never tell you about is the almost assured adversity, pain, poverty, and unhappiness that comes from their casual sexual encounters; whether pregnancy occurs or not. This is the fruit born, not from men as feminists and the media portray, but from the underpinnings of the women’s movement. The so-called friend and protector of women.

As someone said it best, “With friends like these, who needs enemies.” --- Unknown.

So it is apparent that women are taught to feel oppressed by the biological fact that they can get pregnant from their irresponsible actions but a man cannot. And because it is impossible to direct their anger at God or nature for making them this way, they blame the only other possible suspect in this so-called injustice against them. MEN. Men and their misogynistic plots to make them second class citizens. This irrational and biased mindset is taught to our daughters as children and reinforced throughout their lifetime. Though it is blatant prejudice, it is such repetitive propaganda that even a majority of men have succumbed to its trickery. So even though women know only they can get pregnant, it now appears their remedy is to act as irresponsibly as men can, have a man pick up half the tab for choices only they make about their bodies, then have society praise them for their courage and selflessness for choosing to become a single mother, while denying men the same choice about becoming fathers.

But the dirty little secret about single motherhood is that most prison inmates are the products of single parent homes. And most men who commit rape are products of single parent homes. And most married women who eventually decide to get divorced are products of single parent homes. And most families living in poverty or are welfare recipients are single parent families. And the physical abuse, neglect, and murder of children is rarely committed by fathers but rather mothers, most of whom are single mothers (yet television and movies exclusively and inaccurately portray fathers as the physical abusers of children). And most juvenile delinquency, juvenile crime, adolescent substance abuse, high school drop-outs, teenage runaways, teenage homelessness, teenage suicides, teenage promiscuity, teenage pregnancy which leads to more single mothers, are products of single family homes. Nearly every critical problem we face in society can be linked back to single parent homes. Eliminate the single parent phenomenon, which overwhelmingly consists of single mothers, and you eliminate most of our societal problems.

Having said that, history has shown us that barring the downfall and destruction of society itself (which is not far off), followed by a re-evaluating of our laws and lifestyle choices, this will never happen. Because Democrat and Republican politicians at the federal, state, and local level, are too afraid of not being re-elected if they cease creating policies strengthening single motherhood. And the legal system, bolstered by Roe v. Wade, finds ways to subvert the will of the people and/or the Constitution via judicial activism by creating laws in support of the feminist agenda rather than interpreting it as is their function. And the mainstream media with its liberal, secular, progressive agenda is all too willing to perpetuate the single mother as simultaneously a selfless heroine and victim of male oppression. And women’s rights advocates refuse to inform women and the general public that most of our societal problems are stemming from illegitimacy because their ideas are more important than our realities. For them the end doesn’t just justify the means, the end justifies our end. But maybe we should just close our eyes to the truth and start looking at it as they do.

After all, at least it’s all done in the name of equality.

But as someone said it best, “Be careful what you ask for, you just might get it.” --- Unknown.