The Problem With Pro-Choice

I should preface this with the acknowledgement that I am somewhat old fashioned in my views regarding gender roles, and tend to treat most women more as cherished objects than as equals. I retain a set of convictions based on pattern analysis behind this behavior, but despite the apparent chauvinism in the women as objects philosophy, I first and foremost strive to always avoid imposing my personal will upon another human being, and safeguard against those who would. Sometime ago I wrote a little bit promoting the Pro-Life agenda, from what I perceived to be a somewhat eccentric angle, and now months later I have been plagued with an equally eccentric approach at attacking the Pro-Choice agenda. I have been resisting logging it, as it initially seemed absurd to me (and justly so, as it hit me somewhat out of the blue), but as the days passed the idea simply refused to die…and instead, much to my surprise, it began growing in scope and logical application.

My initial thought; "Pro-Choice" is sexist. Although it takes two to reproduce, women are the only ones that get any choice. Men have absolutely no legal say in the matter, and can wind up suffering child-support payments for a woman’s bad choice in selfishly keeping a kid she can’t raise. To make matters even more biased, there’s no contraceptive for men short of a vasectomy, save condoms– which everyone knows are a tremendous pain in the ass…one that men alone usually end up dealing with, because women don’t want their precious fingers smelling like rubber gloves. The entire sexual/medical industry is accidentally designed to screw men over, after overcompensating for the wrong-doing done to women over the last several millennia. Women argue that it’s their body, but technically it’s the child’s body…a 50/50 ownership between the man and the woman. There is no genderless choice option in "pro choice," and if men don’t get one, neither should women.

See what I mean about it sounding completely audacious and ridiculous?

But think about it for a moment…the element of choice alone, regarding the altering of an event that would shape our lives into something entirely different, opens the door for the aversion of obvious short-term consequences, at the cost of abandoning imperceivable long-term rewards. This is essentially what most christians argue, only they allow their "blind, ignorant, morality" to become a scapegoat for a very logical, and reasonable truth– that some of the choices that get made for us, through fate or otherwise, that seem to have terrible life-ending consequences initially, tend to turn into enormous blessings over time, and bear fruit that we could never imagine living without.

And to put this option of sacrificing long-term happiness for short-term happiness on women alone of all creatures is downright lunacy. Women, who wouldn’t know what was best for them them if it bitch-slapped them across the room like an abusive boyfriend. Women, who would flush a twelve year friendship with another girl straight down the drain just to steal her boyfriend. Women, who in their doe-eyed sheepishness are far more susceptible to persuasion, and therefore far more vulnerable to being talked into an abortion by a typically un-rooted baby daddy.

I think two choices should be taken away; a man’s choice to abandon his child (particularly since his role in a child’s life, mentally and emotionally, is far more important than the child’s mother), and a man’s choice to try to persuade his woman to choose an abortion, so he can continue fucking other women after he gets rid of you…