Letters to the Editor

Some radical pro-abortion feminists have said, "Men can't get pregnant, so they shouldn't be involved in the decisions surrounding abortions."

Well, men are involved in the decisions. Men decide to have sex when they aren't willing to be fathers to the children they create. They decide to use contraceptives sloppily or not at all. They decide to abandon the women they impregnate. They decide to badger, threaten, or coerce women into aborting.

Some men decide to become abortionists and get rich off the decisions made by other men.

I never hear pro-choicers getting upset about these men and their decisions. The only men they have a problem with are the decent, honest ones. If a man dares to try to keep women and children from being harmed or killed, pro-choicers scream. In other words, they hate men who act like men and not like spoiled brats.

These men realize that letting women and children suffer for your own selfish impulses isn't manly at all. And any woman who'd let a man treat her like that has serious problems.

Some pro-choicers say, "If men could get pregnant, abortion would be a sacrament."

I don't know if this insults men or women more.

First, it suggests that women consider abortion a sacrament. Aside from a few demented pagans, I can't imagine any woman feeling that way. Human sacrifice is barbaric, and most women rightly recoil at the thought.

Second, it claims that men are bloodthirsty monsters--that if they could get away with it, they would celebrate killing children.

Yes, there are some bloodthirsty monsters among the pro-choicers. The authors of The Sacrament of Abortion and Pagan Meditations spring to mind. To these women, the appeal of abortion is that it kills a child. They like killing babies--it makes them feel significant and powerful. But they are the exception. Most pro-choicers consider the actual killing of the child a side-effect of abortion. Their goal may be personal, financial, or political, but it is hardly satanic. They would be just as enamored of any other practice that allowed them to be irresponsible, rich, or influential. Most of them probably wish abortion didn't really involve killing their fellow human beings.

As for the "abortion as a sacrament" crowd--it's about time they stopped imposing their bizarre religious beliefs on the rest of society. Must we continue killing babies just to satisfy a few Aztec throwbacks? I don't think so.

One of the more outrageous things radical pro-abortion feminists say is, "If men could get pregnant, abortion would be a sacrament."

This claim raises some grotesque theological considerations hinging on human sacrifice. We'll leave those to these feminists and their personal gods. Instead, let's imagine a world in which men did get pregnant.

Childbirth would probably be a competitive sport. Childbirth instructors would be paid like sports coaches. A third of the evening news broadcast would be devoted to childbirth commentary. Who was in labor the longest? Who got through the quickest? Who had the biggest baby? The biggest multiple birth? We would look at local, state, regional, national, and world birthing records.

I could tell you one thing for sure--the cesarean rate would not be nearly as high.

And abortion would be unheard of. Men would not stand for it. They would not risk sterility, colostomy, brain damage, or death under the abortionist's knife.

The whole reason we have abortion is because women are looked on as second-class citizens. Their concerns are not important. They are not worthy of attention. We can afford to lose them to risky surgery under unsanitary conditions.

Most of all, we have abortion because so many women see themselves as second-rate. They are willing to climb onto the abortion table again and again and again. They buy into the idea that their bodies are faulty due to their fertility.

I say again--if men could get pregnant, abortion would be unheard of.

Radical pro-abortion feminists find fault with men who oppose abortion. They say abortion is a women's issue and "men have no business being involved."

What a hypocritical statement! These abortion-supporting feminists have no qualms about men being involved in abortion. The overwhelming majority of abortionists in America are men. I've never heard the pro-abortion women complain. These men get rich off women's misery, and these gals see nothing wrong with that.

Alan Alda, Bill Clinton, and Ted Kennedy come to mind as other men pro-abortion feminists welcome into the abortion debate.

These women have never complained about the male "escorts" outside the local abortion clinics. I've seen them grab women by the arm and propel them into the clinic. The pro-abortion women find no fault with this behavior.

Most of the pro-lifers outside the abortion clinics are women. The pro-abortion women have no problem with the male "escorts" mistreating these women. When the male "escorts" interpose between a pro-life woman and a woman about to have an abortion, do pro-abortion women mind? Not a bit. Here we have men interfering with women discussing abortion. This isn't wrong, according to pro-abortion feminists.

Clearly, they have no problem with men being involved if they are impregnating the women, abandoning them, coercing them, grabbing and shoving them, or getting rich off of them. Their only complaint is with men who think women deserve better.

I think these pro-abortion women have a problem.

Pro-abortion feminist extremists often find fault with men who oppose abortion. They say abortion is a women's issue, and "men have no business being involved."

What a sexist remark!

What gives these pro-abortion women the right to exclude people from public discourse on the basis of sex?

They sometimes claim that since men don't get pregnant, men can't understand. This is stupid. If a blind man tried to warn a sighted neighbor about an unscrupulous optometrist, would we tell him to butt out because he can't see? Do we tell young people they have no business trying to stop the abuse of the elderly in nursing homes? Should adults refuse to address child abuse because it doesn't affect them? No. We don't shut people out from involvement in issues just because they are not directly affected.

In fact, we admire people more when they stand up for others. What kind of man would just sit idly by while women were being raped, mutilated, and killed? The word "coward" comes to mind. Yet this is exactly what these pro-abortion feminists seem to want men to be: cowards who allow women to be raped, mutilated, and killed by abortionists. They want men to wash their hands of the matter. They want men to say, "Well, since it's not my problem, why should I care?"

We have to wonder what pro-abortion feminists' motives are. One thing we know for sure: concern for the women isn't one of them.

A pro-abortion feminist fanatic says she finds fault with men who oppose abortion. She claims that abortion is a women's issue, and that "men have no business being involved."

I wonder if she includes men who favor abortion. Would she also like to see them thrown out of the debate?

I suspect not. This whole argument is a smoke screen. She's smart enough to know that if we excluded men from the issue, the debate would quickly be over. First of all, most abortionists are men. This would leave almost no one to perform abortions. The National Abortion Federation would lose over half of its Board of Directors. And a lot of pro-abortion politicians would be unseated, since the majority of pro-choice voters are white, middle-class males.

Finally, let's not overlook the fact that it is primarily irresponsible men who profit from abortion. For every woman who is willing to submit to an abortion, somewhere a man breathes a little easier. Perhaps that explains why polls taken by groups on both sides of the issue show that women consistently oppose abortion at a higher rate than men. They are more likely than men to call it "murder." They are more likely to say that it is wrong. They are more opposed to government funding of abortion. They are more active in the pro-life movement. And they are more likely to favor banning abortion outright.

Pro-lifers ought to ask this fanatic to put her money where her mouth is. If only the women squared off, it would soon be put to rights.

Before the legalization of abortion, boyfriends who impregnated their girlfriends and took them to get abortions could be prosecuted if the abortion caused her death.

Nowadays, since abortion has been legalized, if a boyfriend arranges for a woman to have an abortion that kills her, he gets off free. Her family can't even sue him for contributing to her tragic and untimely death.

Clearly, legalizing abortion didn't serve women, since they die whether abortion is legal or not. But it serves men, who no longer go to jail for trying to weasel out of their responsibilities. A bumper sticker I've seen says it all: "Irresponsible men love abortion."

A senator recently sent out a letter saying, "Such an intensely personal decision as abortion should be made by the woman and her husband." What rights does the senator feel the father should have in an abortion decision?

The answer, of course, is none. If the woman chooses not to tell her husband, or has the abortion over his tearful pleadings not to kill his child, that's fine with the senator.

How can these radical pro-abortionists declare that a father has no right to say he doesn't want his child killed? They're the same ones who say that if the mother decides to let it live, it's his responsibility to pay for its upbringing.

One of the biggest social problems this country faces is men who father children, then skip out on their responsibilities. And this problem has gotten considerably worse since abortion was legalized. Could it be that we have created that situation, or at least encouraged it, by telling men that during the nine months of pregnancy their children are none of their business? Is it logical for a society to spend nine months telling him that whether the child lives or dies is none of his concern, then suddenly expect a burst of enthusiasm and responsibility the moment the cord is cut?

Abortion on demand punishes responsible men by killing their children against their will, and rewards deadbeats by relieving them of all responsibility. Is it any wonder the deadbeats take advantage of the situation?