The Person Missing in the Abortion Debate — The Guy
In the current abortion-related apocalypse, two parties get the most attention
First, there is the fetus, the seed of a human around whom the dystopian debate revolves.
Second, there is the mother, who gains the identity and role of host organism while losing all other aspects of her being.
However, there is a third party missing from this discussion. For most pregnancies a father is needed to be present to contribute an essential bit of material to the process, unless it happens that an event that happened two thousand years ago might be repeated.
Unfortunately, the role of the father is missing from all of the legislation that has been passed and that is being proposed. It’s time that situation was corrected. I will agree ahead of time that what I proposed likely won’t pass, but that the debate would be illustrative of the depravity of those behind the legislation to further restrict women’s rights.
Every time one of those bills comes up for debate, the pro-choice legislators should propose an amendment:
“That the male responsible for the pregnancy shall be financially responsible for the medical care of the mother from conception to birth and for the first 18 years of the child’s life. Failure to provide such support shall result in fines and imprisonment, and the state shall take over those responsibilities.”
The arguments in favor of this amendment are unassailable. If you are truly pro-life, you should want the best health care for the child’s host. There are surely many girls and women who through circumstances beyond their control, can’t afford or don’t have access to the financial resources for such an undertaking. This amendment would make sure the fetus has the best care possible as would, of necessity, the host.
However, I have every confidence that the politicians who favor forced birth will come up with some arguments to defeat the legislation.
“Mr. Speaker, I rise today in opposition to this ridiculous amendment. At the start, there is no way to tell who may have impregnated a young lady. There could be many candidates, to say the least. To test all of them would be a violation of their rights and a burden on the state. This bill is way too intrusive.”
“Madame President, this amendment must be a joke. At a time of severe economic stress, the advocates of abortion on demand all the time are proposing something that could end up costing this state millions of dollars. Think of all of the pregnant girls and women we have in this state. Simply because our official policy is one of abstinence doesn’t mean that people are following it. That is very sad. But to put on the state the financial burden of caring for women and babies is just absurd. It’s a burden on the men, who have to make a living, and on the state, which has other responsibilities.”
“Madame Speaker, this amendment by the radical left is the ultimate case of big government. Simply because we have banned the procedure so appalling I won’t even name it, is no reason to impose new duties on the men here and new burdens on the state. It is insensitive at best and intrusive at worst. If we can mandate medical care, where will this end?”
“The radical liberals are at it again, Mr. Chairman. This bill discriminates again the male of the species and as such should be disregarded at once. If a man and a woman have consensual sexual congress, why is the burden shifting only to him? What about the woman’s responsibility? He is saddled with paying all these bills and she get away scot free. I won’t stand for it.”
“As a good Christian woman, I strongly oppose this amendment. It is our job to bear children and the job of the man to provide, under marriage, for her and his children. None of this applies to unmarried people. The people of this state should not be subsidizing unacceptable relations.”
Now, let’s hear the rebuttal. One should do in all of these cases:
“Mr. Speaker, today we have heard from several speakers opposing my simple amendment. It is, at its most basic form, pro-life. It recognizes the value of the health of the baby and the health of the mother. It puts the responsibility for care where it lies, with the father, who to date is not even considered in the abortion decision. What can be more caring and compassionate than that? Some of you complained about the cost. It would certainly be more cost-efficient to allow someone to terminate a pregnancy, particularly one that could result in high medical costs that a patient is unable to pay.
“Some of you consider this bill intrusive. That’s true. It is, but no more intrusive than interfering with the most intimate, difficult, and terrifying decision between a woman and her physician.
“So go ahead and reject this amendment and I know you will approve these most stringent and punitive anti-abortion bills. Just know that your stunning hypocrisy, sexism and misogyny is on display for the world to see.”