Life Chat: Why Men Shouldn’t “Shut up” about Abortion


Hello, Roland Warren here. I recently met a young man from an Ivy League
university who started a pro-life group on his campus. I asked him if there was a particular obstacle
he faced where I could be helpful. Without hesitation, he told me the pro-choice
folks on campus often tell him that since he cannot get pregnant and face the burden
of an unplanned pregnancy, what he says or thinks about abortion does not matter. As a man who is president of Care Net I have
heard this challenge to men so often that I have coined it the “no womb/no say”
perspective. In short, since a man does not have a womb
to carry an unborn child, he should have no say in what happens to an unborn child in
the womb. Now, without analysis, this may seem to make
sense. However, when you really consider the underlying
principle of this line of thinking, it quickly becomes clear that it may be a good “sound
bite,” but it is clearly not “sound logic.” But before I deal with the logic aspect, I
would be remiss if I did not address the fact that those who use this argument are being
disingenuous. Here is what Unite for Reproductive & Gender
Equity (URGE), a major proponent of the bro-choice movement to engage men in the abortion debate,
says on its website: “Pro-choice men can be a powerful force
in helping move our policy agenda forward, which is exactly why URGE leads the way in
recruiting and elevating their voices within this movement. By building a network of outspoken, actively
engaged men, we are building the power necessary to move policy and win on our issues.” After reading URGE’s perspective, I was
reminded of the old quip, “When I want your opinion, I will give it to you!” For the “Bro Choice” advocates, it’s
perfectly fine and even required for men to engage in the abortion debate — as long
as they come down on the their side. Now, the “no womb/no say” perspective
is also very problematic when you consider it through the lens of logic. Essentially, the principle underlying the
view is this: Unless one is impacted by an issue or action in the most direct way, one
should have no agency in making decisions about that issue or action. So let’s consider a few situations. Should a woman who is a stay-at-home mom and,
therefore, makes no income outside the home, have a say on tax policy? After all, she doesn’t directly pay taxes
on an income. Or, should someone who does not own a gun
or has never been impacted by gun violence have a say in what our nation’s gun laws should
be? Again, a non-gun owner is not going to be
directly impacted if access to guns is limited. When you consider this perspective in light
of our nation’s history, it’s especially troubling. For example, consider the Civil War. The South was primarily an agrarian society
that, in large measure, was structured and directly dependent on slave labor. Indeed, a key aspect of the South’s “states’
rights” argument was that since the North’s society and economic system would not be as
directly impacted by the abolition of slavery, the North should have no say. Indeed, “no slaves/no say” was the battle cry for the South. Also consider the issue of voting rights in
the United States. From our nation’s founding, voting rights
were limited to property owners or tax paying white males, who were about 6 percent of the
population. So the notion was “no property/no say.” The view held by many men was that women were
not and should not be as directly involved in the economic and civil aspect of American
society as men. Consequently, these men held a “womb/no
say” perspective when it came to voting rights. Well, the Women’s Suffrage movement challenged
this perspective, and in 1920, with the passage of the 19th Amendment to the Constitution,
women were given the right to vote … by men. You see, in all of the above examples, we
have rightly rejected the principle that undergirds the “no womb/no say” perspective. Why? Because when considering what is best for
our society, we don’t just consider the views of those most directly impacted to the
exclusion of all others. To do so would be an injustice, especially
to those who are vulnerable. Rather, we give an equal say and even encourage
the voices of those who are affected, even if only indirectly. Indeed, a stay-at-home mom is affected by
tax policy, so she has an equal right and is encouraged to vote. Our nation’s gun laws affect the safety of
the communities where the non-gun owners live and raise their children, so they must have
a say in the laws that are enacted. The moral stain and injustice of slavery affected
those in the North, so they had an agency and an obligation to fight a bloody war to eliminate
it. The laws that were passed in this nation affected
women’s rights to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness, so it was an injustice
to deny them the right to vote. Accordingly, when an unborn child is killed
in the womb, especially if it is his child, it deeply affects a man. So, doesn’t it make sense for him to have
a say, too? Until next time, may God bless you daily as you serve Him faithfully.

7 Replies to “Life Chat: Why Men Shouldn’t “Shut up” about Abortion”

  1. "Unless one is impacted by an issue or action in the most direct way, one should have no agency in making decisions about that issue or action".
    The differences is that abortion does not and can't not involve you in any direct OR indirect way. The examples you gave are things that could indirectly effect you through precedent and chain reactions, but abortion ONLY effects those who participate in the action. It can not effect anyone but the woman, or the fetus, and if you REALLY want to stretch, the doctor performing the abortion. After that there is no effect at all. So these examples are not at all analogous.
    However, banning abortion CAN both directly and indirectly effect everyone negatively. For one, right after abortion was legalized crime overall became way lower as a result.https://scholar.harvard.edu/barro/files/99_0927_crimerate_bw.pdf
    So this is an example of how an action actually helped stop other actions that did directly effect people.
    I can name a few others.
    Banning abortion will make people send more kids to foster care, which already takes in more kids that it can lead out which is not only a problem for our tax dollars, but the system there isn't good. So it is a worst off solution.
    http://www.stirjournal.com/2014/05/12/u-s-foster-care-a-flawed-solution-that-leads-to-more-long-term-problems/
    http://www.childrensrights.org/newsroom/fact-sheets/foster-care/

    More people will be incarcerated, which would directly mess with our already giant prison population.
    http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/shared/spl/hi/uk/06/prisons/html/nn2page1.stm

    We know that abortion is 14 times less lethal than childbirth when performed by a trained doctor, https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/22270271
    But as a direct result of legislating abortion people who don't care about the law will succumb more to death, so more people will die as a result.
    https://www.npr.org/2018/01/19/578620266/before-roe-v-wade-the-women-of-jane-provided-abortions-for-the-women-of-chicago

    So the legislation won't function.

    You can make an argument that men shouldn't be forced to pay child support, and that if a woman wants to have a kid then she has to make good choices. AKA we hold a higher standard towards getting into relationships and making sure people know what to do, however your logic in this video not only works against the pro life position, but in favor of pro choice.

  2. Except none of those issues (stay at home mom, gun owners) are not anything remotely like pregnancy. Issues of voting and issues of individual medical care are completely different. Just like someone going in for any other surgery or medical issue, there will be people outside of that individual that will have opinions, but at the end of the day, it is up to the individual having the medical procedure done. Same stands with pregnancy. Men (and other women) may have opinions about what happens, but ultimately it is up to the pregnant person and them alone if they wish to continue with the pregnancy.

  3. I have nothing against feminism and a woman's right to choose. I never have done. If I have a daughter I would want her to grow up a strong feminist. However should men in contradiction have no say what so ever over the potential life of their unborn child? We live an over all post feminism western world (yes I am aware we still have some way to go before both genders are seen completely equal but overall it is a post feminism society). I appreciate women have to carry and give birth to the child I do. But for that reason alone should it mean men have absolutely no say in the matter what so ever? Because that is exactly what we're saying when we say it's 100% a woman's choice. Saying that just because woman carry the child means they should have 100% power over whether that life lives or dies is like saying just because men are larger and stronger then women they should have 100% say over what happens in society (which was the case for far too many centuries). I know many many people on here will hate that example but it is a valid one. If we are to live I a truly equal society then it needs to cut both ways. I have no idea how a society would work in a completely fair way where men get a say but I do know they should get one. It takes both a man and a woman to create a life, it should be the decision of both of those two people whether or not to end it.

  4. men who love to use women for sex loves abortion they dont have to pay for there mistakes and and yet get free butty

  5. its a win win for men you have all these women killing there babies and you dont even have to pay for it taxes are and you move on to the next free sex party lol

  6. My problem isn't men offering their opinions on abortion, it's that most pro-life men are so ignorant of how women's bodies work that they don't take into account the physical and mental tolls pregnancy can have on a person.

    Most men I have talked with have never even heard of “false positives” AKA chemical pregnancy when a fertilized egg (blastocyst) implants and begins to raise the pregnancy hormones, but then is shed in the following period. Normally a woman wouldn’t even suspect that she had been briefly pregnant, but someone trying to conceive might catch it on an early response home pregnancy test.

    These are also the same men who say "life begins at conception". At least educate yourself on women's bodies before you go telling them what to do with it.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *