The line of reasoning goes that since only a woman is affected by the pregnancy, and thus by the abortion, she and she alone should have complete say over whether or not to have one. The purpose of this argument is to silence any men who oppose abortion—but those who make this argument conveniently tend to look the other way when the shoe is on the other foot and men are found to be supporting abortion. Where is the condemnation for the men who overturned the abortion laws in Roe v. Wade and Doe v. Bolton? You won’t hear any from those who condemn men for taking a pro-life stand. What about a movement to require that all abortionists be women? The mere thought of that is absurd. And why have men such as NARAL founder Bernard Nathanson and abortionist Alan Guttmacher been so prominent in the pro-choice think-tanks? There seems to be no problem in allowing men to play prominent roles in the pro-choice movement.
Perhaps instead this argument is only meant to quiet the pro-life men as being “unsupportive” of women. But then those who use this argument have some explaining to do: according to a study in the Medical Science Journal, 64% of women in the US who have had abortions reported that they had felt coerced into it [1]. Who, I wonder, is doing the coercing? Could it possibly be the boyfriends or even husbands who impregnated them in the first place? Given that polling has consistently shown that the single largest demographic group who support easy access to abortions are single, childless men, the answer is surely “yes.” So much for pro-choice men being “supportive.”
The argument itself is based on the assumption that men are unaffected by pregnancy and abortion. Even with the fact that we’re all paying for abortions to be subsidized with tax-dollars aside, men still have plenty at stake in whether or not the child is born or aborted. It took two people to make the child, and that child will in part be an image of the father. Why else would people be so much more sympathetic towards women who seek abortions to get rid of rape than towards “other” abortion cases? Just as the rape child is an unfortunate symbol of the rapist, those many children who are conceived with the woman’s consent are images of their fathers. Thus, in destroying the child, the woman is in a symbolic way also destroying the father.
Abortion should concern men for another reason: its negative effects on a woman’s mental health. In a survey of 252 women in 42 states, 94% said that they experienced negative psychological affects due to having abortions [2]. According to a separate survey in the Medical Science Monitor, 65% of women who had abortions suffered from multiple symptoms of Post-Traumatic Stress Disorder [3]. Woman who have had abortions are 65% more likely to suffer clinical depression [4], 160% more likely to be hospitalized for psychiatric treatment [5], and most shockingly, they are 6-7 times more likely to commit suicide [6] when compared with women who have not had abortions. Can we really love our wives and girlfriends if we are unconcerned about their mental health? Are we good fathers and brothers if we ignore such a potential threat to our daughters and sisters? Nay, so to say that men have no stake in abortion is to imply that we are all cold and uncaring. As the early feminist Susan B. Anthony expressed it in The Revolution,
“Guilty? Yes. No matter what the motive, love of ease, or a desire to save from suffering the unborn innocent, the woman is awfully guilty who commits the deed. It will burden her conscience in life, it will burden her soul in death; But oh, thrice guilty is he who drove her to the desperation which impelled her to the crime!”The proponents of abortion have essentially left us with two options: we can vocally support abortions, or we can remain silent, and thus implicitly supportive of abortion. If we love our wives, if we care for our girlfriends, if we cherish our sisters and daughters, we can accept neither of these options. As men we must stand up and reject abortion and the culture of death which enables it. For some of us, this means being more supportive of the women we know who are pregnant—and also those who have children. This is especially true if those women are our wives (or even our girlfriends), but it is true to the lesser of extent of not being so disdainful of women (married or otherwise) with children*. For others, rejecting abortion may mean exercising restraint when you know that you (or your significant others) view having children as a burden and not as a gift. And we can all encourage pro-life solutions to unwanted pregnancies. Perhaps this will mean placing the child for adoption; it can also mean swallowing our pride and stepping into the role of becoming loving and supportive fathers.
It is clear that we cannot merely stay neutral in the battle over abortion. If we will not be pro-life, if we refuse to condemn abortion, then we will be implicated in all of its horrors. Too many otherwise good and supportive men among us have been silenced on this issue for too long; others have made a courageous and principled stand for our loved ones. If we really care about our wives and girlfriends, or for that matter our sisters and daughters, then it is time for us to take a stand against abortions. For the sake of our loved ones, it is time for us to take the lead in establishing a culture of life which affirms the dignity of both women and their children.
* I’m not saying here that women getting pregnant out-of-wedlock is a good thing—quite the opposite. However, there is a prevailing social attitude on both sides that continues to condemn women for having children out-of-wedlock. Particularly within the Christian section of the pro-life crowd, this is largely due to Christians frowning on the act of having intercourse outside of wedlock, and not on the pregnancy itself. However, the pregnancy is often the “sign” that intercourse has been had. We need to do a better job of frowning upon the premarital (and extramarital) sexual activities while still being supportive of single mothers. This is a fairly complex issue, but I would point to the various crisis pregnancy centers as one model for how to reasonably accomplish this.
Of possibly even greater concern than the attitude towards pregnancy out-of-wedlock is the prevalent attitude towards pregnancies early within wedlock. It seems fairly socially acceptable to “wait” a few years after getting married to have the first child. It’s not exactly frowned upon for the woman to become pregnant within these “honeymoon years,” but the reaction isn’t exactly supportive, either. A couple of friends of mine who recently had a baby said that many of their friends thought they were crazy for having a child so soon. They will have been married for one year in March. Such a social attitude towards children even within wedlock must surely be detriment to fostering a “culture of life.”
[1] VM Rue et. al., “Induced abortion and traumatic stress: A preliminary comparison of American and Russian women,” Medical ScienceMonitor 10(10): SR5-16, 2004.
[2] Appendix 2 of Aborted Women: Silent No More by David C. Reardon (Loyola University Press, 1987).
[3] VM Rue et. al., “Induced abortion and traumatic stress: A preliminary comparison of American and Russian women,” Medical ScienceMonitor 10(10): SR5-16, 2004.
[4] JR Cougle, DC Reardon, PK Coleman, “Generalized Anxiety Following Unintended Pregnancies Resolved Through Childbirth and Abortion: A Cohort Study of the 1995 National Survey of Family Growth,” Journal of Anxiety Disorders 19:137-142 (2005).
[5] David C. Reardon, “The Duty to Screen: Clinical, Legal, and Ethical Implications of Predictive Risk Factors of Post-Abortion Maladjust-ment,” The Journal of Contemporary Health Law and Policy 20(2):33-114, Spring 2004.
[6] Gissler, Hemminki & Lonnqvist, "Suicides after pregnancy in Finland, 1987-94: register linkage study," British Journal of Medicine 313:1431-4, 1996; and M. Gissler, “Injury deaths, suicides and homicides associated with pregnancy, Finland 1987-2000,” European J. Public Health 15(5):459-63,2005.
-----
If you found this post helpful, you might also like:
Love or Power (Quote of the Day)
Of Womin and Min: A Rant
A Juxtaposition, A Narrative, and Then I Rant, Then I Recover
The Theological Significance of a Pronoun
35 Years of Roe and Doe
Motives, Compassion, and Abortion
_____
Correction: In this article, I attributed the quote “If men could get pregnant, abortion would be a sacrament” to Rose F. Kennedy; it was Florynce Kennedy who is more widely attributed as having said this. I regret the error.
ReplyDeleteThe main reason men should be involved is that this is a human rights issue and men have no right to be silent.
ReplyDeleteOne might as well assert that unless you have children, you have no right to fight child abuse, or that unless you are gay yourself, you have no right to oppose gay-bashing.
Somebody (Frederica Matthewes-Green? Rachel McNair?) at Feminists for Life pointed out that if men could get pregnant, childbirth would be a competitive sport and midwives would be paid as much as major league coaches.
ReplyDelete