Essay: The Wrong in Women's Rights

The Wrong in Women’s Rights
April 7, 2007
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 its assertions are applied consistently to their end, it contradicts premises used to assign responsibility to men to financially support children they did not intend to have.

Feminist ideology proclaims that what a woman does with her body has nothing to do with government policy, the judgments and dictates of men or conventional morality. She does what she wants with her body and her decisions are her own. Yet it’s simple common sense to understand that if it is 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 disregard to a simple rule of natural law that no one disputes in any other situation that occurs 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. 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 congruently it’s completely illogical to say it’s 100% my decision to make because it’s my body (to abort or not abort) but I’m only 50% responsible for the outcome of that decision (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 percent, not 75 percent and not 50/50 but rather a full 100 percent.

There is a ongoing trend in most feminist ideology that no one questions because it either suits there selfish need or because there is fear of societal retaliation. And that is on nearly every feminist issue, women get to have it both ways. To them, women should always receive the full benefits of a position they take but somehow never need to take the full responsibility that goes along with it. It’s always partly or fully someone else’s fault and responsibility (almost always a man’s) when they use the rights they claim they deserve inappropriately and they have to deal with the consequences of their actions.

Even if women did take the position that it is 100% their right to decide the fate of the unborn and responsibility to provide support for the child after birth, I’d still say they were wrong. Because both science and God confirm that what is inside her is not a lifeless mass of cells but a human life. Life imparted by the sperm of a man. And if the sperm of a male is the life giving factor, why aren’t his rights, from what is biologically half his, being represented? Why is a child only half his after a woman makes a decision that requires a man to financially support the child for at least 18 years? 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 his after a woman makes a decision that requires a man to financially support the child for at least 18 years? In legal circles and Constitutional terms that is what they call 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 men, it will in the same breath refuse to do anything about it for what it calls “the greater good of society” (as if abolishing abortion altogether wouldn’t be for the greater good of society). But most importantly, being that it is innocent life, the taking of it is murder. And no one has that right, man or woman; no one but God.

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

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

Having said that, if women did claim it is 100 percent their bodies and responsibility it would at least be, from a legal standpoint, harder to disprove (although not impossible) their sole claim over a child’s fate at conception. It would be closer to the truth and at least a little more honorable; albeit still wrong. And albeit, still murder. 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 and deceitful in nature. There are always sacrifices to go along with the rights and privileges we have in life. So it behooves me to remind you 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. So if someone tells you their position does just that, proceed with caution.

And don’t be misled. There is a difference between being the “willing party” and being the “responsible party”. A man’s willingness to participate in sex is irrelevant in accessing responsibility. Pointing out a man’s willingness to participate sexually is a typical response used for accessing 50 percent responsibility to him.

Hypothetically, let’s say there is a woman who owns a house and there is a man that doesn’t. This man 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 to do so. When he asks her, she tells him no and he leaves to go elsewhere. And what is his reason for leaving? Because it is established that it is 100% her house and therefore he has to abide by her rules. Because what goes on in that house, she is 100% responsible for. Not 90 percent, not 75 percent and not 50/50 but 100 percent.

Do you see the correlation so far? If so, then continue.

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 the outcome of whether or not these things will occur. It 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. And 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 still isn’t the determining factor but her complete authority to make that decision is. That’s why it doesn’t make it the man’s responsibility when the police raid her home and the state government confiscates her house. No one would ever claim that a woman participating in behavior that led to the government confiscating her house is only 50% responsible for her loss, simply because a man, who had no authority to decide what went on, was equally willing to participate. In a court of law, no judge would even entertain that argument. Yet the obvious correlation between this and a woman stating a man is 50% responsible for her body getting pregnant is no longer even questioned by a hoodwinked society. Being equally willing in an act doesn’t automatically mean someone is equally responsible for every consequence that occurs. Willingness is not the determining factor, what you have authority over and are responsible for, is.

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

Yet some will say that if the man said “No” to using drugs to a willing woman, that drug use also would not have occurred. And that means he is equally responsible for stopping the drug use in her house. And therefore equally responsible for the negative results that occur. This is a continuation of the argument used to try and place 50% of the blame and responsibility upon men. Yet that premise is also completely false. And that also would never hold up legally in any court. Because to be responsible for what occurs in her house would presume that he owns at least some part of that house. And we all know the reaction a man would get by claiming he owns even 1 percent of a woman’s body, let alone 50 percent. And the fact of the matter is, that he may be completely capable of stopping the drug use in her house, but being capable of doing it is completely different than being responsible for doing it. Which is why he would never be held accountable for what happened to her house in a court of law. And neither should a man be held accountable for what may happen to a woman’s body (pregnancy), simply because he’s merely capable of stopping sex from occurring. Because it is only a woman who has complete authority over what she does with her body before and after sex. Isn’t that their premise?

There is one last argument that may be employed to refute my observations. Some may say that if the police raid the house, both the man and woman will get arrested. Therefore, there is blame and responsibility placed on the man also. This proves he too is accountable just as the woman is. This statement is true. But this doesn’t disprove my point but rather confirms it. Because even though both the woman and man willingly did the exact same act that produced the police raid, there is one extremely important fact that separates these two individuals. The man went into the situation knowing what consequences his particular actions might cause him personally and the woman did the same. Yet if you compare the negative consequences, caused by similar actions, taken by equally willing partners, you’d see different results. Because only she is the 100% owner of the house. Therefore he 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. She 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. She had more to risk and therefore more to lose. And she still made the decision to continue. Is that fair? Of course it is. It’s her house and her responsibility as to what goes on in her house. And at no point does his individual consequences or his willingness to participate change that fact.

When you clear away all the feminist rhetoric and preconditioned talking points, it comes down to this: Feminist supporters have used the legal system to remove perceived injustices against women because they hate the fact that men naturally have less to lose for doing the same act. 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 that responsibility strictly a financial one, thereby telling men that the only important role that society wants them to play in a child’s life is monetary. Injustices done by only giving lip service to men being equally important to their children, while stripping them of every ability and God given right to be fathers. Sure many women say they want men to be fathers to their children but on their terms; and on a limited basis. They are permitted the occasional suggestion with women holding ultimate veto power. Even in the best case scenarios of joint custody (with physical custody still given to women), men have little to no say in their children’s protection, direction or upbringing. This is a direct assault to a man’s pride, manhood and natural instinct to lead. At best, they are effectively relegated to the role of a friend, a relative or an older brother; but not a father. In short, they take away what truly makes him a man and then demand payment for it.. And then society wonders why men gravitate away from situations such as these instead of toward them.

But as in most feminist causes, they also do harm not good to those they are supposedly fighting for. They don’t care in the slightest that they are destroying the lives of women also. 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 you 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. But in their minds, the average woman’s reality should continue to be compromised for the sake of their “idea” of the way it should be. If you are a woman, for your own good, understand that.

And understand this also: When feminist supporters use the media and the legal system 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 frowned upon, 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, continually feeds into 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 there is little consequence, less responsibility, no shame and therefore no deterrent to cease their less than honorable behavior. On the contrary, there are only reasons to increase it. But what they don’t tell you about, is all the adversity, unhappiness and pain that comes with it too. This is the fruit born, not from men, but from the underpinnings of the women’s movement. The great friend and protector of women. If you are a woman and you are reading this, it is something you truly need to think about.

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

In conclusion, it is apparent that women have been taught to feel oppressed by a natural biological fact of life that they can get pregnant and a man can not. 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 crime against them. Men. Men and their misogynistic plots to make them second class citizens. The problem with this recent revisionist perception is that a sacred truth about the ability to become pregnant has been forgotten. So consider this correlation and remember this truth: The responsibility of owning a house is a blessing, not a fact of life used to portray yourself as a victim because you choose to disrespect and misuse the gift of ownership. And in the same way being chosen by God to be the responsible vessel in the area of carrying a child is even more so a blessing, not a fact of life to be used to portray yourself as a victim because you choose to disrespect and misuse the gift of your body’s ability to carry a child and give birth. Yes it’s true it’s a responsibility that men don’t have. Because the more one is blessed with in a particular area, the more responsibility you have in that area. And make no mistake about it, it is a blessing. So don’t expect any sympathy here. If anything, I should be envious; as all men should be. Because to be blessed with a gift is to be chosen for a purpose and a reason. Chosen because, in this area at least, you are actually superior to men. So ironically what women try and caste off in order to “make themselves equal”, is one of the things that makes them equal in the eyes of God (because men are blessed with other gifts). And women are not just blessed with the gift of being able to carry a child and give birth, but also the temperament and disposition that predisposes them to be less likely to put themselves in inappropriate sexual situations. Therefore, more responsibility and less excuse is accounted to women for behaving in the exact same manner a man might in sexual situations. In short, if you are a woman and try and take a man’s shortcomings and aspire to those shortcomings instead of assuming your responsibilities, all in the name of equality, then you have defeated your purpose. For in terms of character and worthiness of respect, you have just effectively made yourself less than equal to men.

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

© Copyright E. Abdiel
eabdiel7@hotmail.com

DISCLAIMER: The conclusion expressed concerning how much responsibility should be accessed to men after a child is born, albeit closer to the truth, does not reflect my actual belief on what the final moral and legal solution should ultimately be. I am simply exposing that if the “My Body, My Choice” legal position is taken, then the principle needs to be consistent, and the full responsibility of that position needs to be taken also; not just the benefits. And if the responsibility aspects of that position is not taken, then the original premise behind that position must be flawed.