Abortion at a Woman’s Whim
Abortion tends to become an endless moral debate and this has previously been discouraged here. However, recent proposals by the NZ Law Commission deserve some consideration of this matter and its relevance to men.
The Law Commission has long been a feminist force forwarding the exploitation and harming of men. In addition to their proposal to make men pay alimony to the women who betrayed them and/or trashed their children’s family units, the Commission has also invented three options for changing abortion law. All three options treat fathers as totally irrelevant. It seems likely that the Labia-led government will enact one of these options unless there is very loud objection.
The lack of respect and importance accorded to fathers was already evident in this government’s earlier decision to make it ok for women to refuse to name a baby’s father.
The foetus in gestation is a man’s progeny. That has been of huge importance in biology and the evolution of behaviour. During pregnancy the father’s progeny is reliant on the mother’s womb and what she does with her body. After birth the father’s progeny is reliant on the mother’s breast milk and what she does with her body. The degree of reliance is somewhat less after birth than before but that’s a matter of degree. Disruptions to the thin veneer of civilization soon increase the degree to which infants’ survival depends on mothers’ nurturing. There is really no more justification for the slogan ‘woman’s body, woman’s choice’ regarding any responsibility for safely gestating a foetus than there would be for using the same mantra to remove any responsibility on mothers to feed or care for babies.
Further, the principle that we own our bodies therefore should be allowed to cut out healthy things in them is not tenable. If a man tries to cut out some healthy part of his body he will probably be forcibly prevented from doing so and if he asks some medical professional to do it this will probably be refused and rightly so.
Abortion really does need to be based on better arguments than the feminist slogan. That’s not a difficult task.
The current law has been widely flouted by women and their enablers. The ‘threat to mental health’ criterion has long been treated as a quaint, rubber-stamping exercise. For whatever reason this form of law-breaking has been mostly ignored or condoned by the authorities. This appears to be part of the wider phenomenon of special treatment towards women when they break laws.
Whether a foetus is aborted or not is of massive relevance to men. It determines whether or not the man will be forced into almost two decades of financial servitude and, for most, hardship. On the other hand it determines whether or not a man will at that time move into the next stage of his development, that of fatherhood. In some cases such as when a man’s potency is weak, a man’s health is poor, a man’s life ends prematurely or a man’s ability to attract a new mate is limited, the decision whether to abort or not will determine whether that man will have any offspring at all.
We want all children to have a right upheld to know who their father is. Where this is in doubt we believe all reasonable measures should be used to identify the father.
We want all fathers to have a right upheld to be informed about any progeny as soon as gestation has been identified.
We propose that abortion be available to any woman who wants it and can find a suitably qualified practitioner prepared to perform it, without any need to provide reasons to that practitioner or to any authority, up to an age of gestational development as decided by parliament on the basis of medical risk. However, we propose that the woman be required to produce proof that a decision-making process has been completed involving the father of the foetus as described below, before any practitioner is allowed to perform an abortion.
We propose that abortions outside the allowed gestational development period or failing to follow required process be treated as criminal offending and that the law be enforced as strongly as in any other criminal matter.
We propose that the father of a foetus have the right to have his voice and opinion heard in the process of deciding about an abortion. This could be through one or more compulsory mediation or counselling sessions either with the parents together or separately. We accept that the final decision be made by the mother but that decision needs to be in full awareness of the father’s preference. For example, a father may offer to take over full responsibility for raising the child if born and that may influence the mother’s decision.
We propose that if a mother wants an abortion but decides to proceed with the pregnancy on the basis of the father’s expressed wish to take responsibility for rearing the child, then the mother’s financial responsibility for that child be reduced or removed unless that mother chooses and is allowed to commence a maternal role with that child.
We propose that if a father wants an abortion to take place but the mother chooses to continue with the pregnancy, then the father’s financial liability for that child be reduced or removed unless that father chooses and is allowed to commence a paternal role with that child.
We propose that all abortions be required to include some form of funeral in order to recognize a degree of moral importance to the action. That ceremony may be very minor such as a short karakia or standard statement to recognize and to farewell the dead foetus. We believe this will also assist women’s emotional welfare following abortions.
There are no easy answers to the question of abortion but these are some starting points for debate that does not treat men with utter contempt.
I agree. Time to put it here.
4th paragraph, last line; could you please remove ‘their’ to leave ‘feed and care for babies’.
In support of this request I’m referring back to the discussions on the Privy Council decision on children, which I have previously mentioned in comments that in not so many words in my interpretation said;
The child exists as an individual remaining in the mother’s or parents’ care at the pleasure of the crown.
Comment by Downunder — Sat 10th November 2018 @ 1:19 pm
@1: Done, good point.
Comment by Ministry of Men's Affairs — Sat 10th November 2018 @ 1:54 pm
Some things are discouraged here but can I just throw this in …
https://youtu.be/GrM2fxnkxjA
Comment by Downunder — Sat 10th November 2018 @ 2:33 pm
It would be preferable that this is a more than usual moderated discussion.
Comment by Evan Myers — Sat 10th November 2018 @ 8:37 pm
Given Clementine Ford’s view that abortion is a legitimate contraception for women it would suprise me if there weren’t a few anti-abortion protesters at her book launch tonight as well as anti feminist protesters.
Comment by Evan Myers — Tue 27th November 2018 @ 11:11 am
Everyone in their right mind knows that prevention is better than cure, she must be nuts.
Comment by mama — Tue 27th November 2018 @ 12:47 pm
It is RIDICULOUS for our government to keep coming from idea that WOMEN NEED SAVING FROM THEMSELVES,,in my case OURSELVES,,, we are so great, so why do we need so much protection, we are told we are VICTIMS, UNDER REPRESENTED in so so many ways, WE are UNABLE to protect ourselves from DISCRIMINATION, I might conceive such action to even be SEXY or AM I NOT even ALLOWED to be SEXY either now!
We heard it said in the 90’s. I am Woman see me Roar,
What is it now?,, I am Woman please Protect me.
I see the issue of ABORTION as a HUMAN one and it should be treated accordingly, we are CLEVER beings, so IF and WHEN it does OCCUR it needs to e treated in a HUMAN way.
Education is THE way FORWARD, OUR BIOLOGY is something we should all understand by the time we leave our schools, instead we have PISSY AROUNDY sex ed. classes.. SCIENCE MUST ENTER OUR EDUCATION BEFORE WE GET MUCH WORSE…instead of being DUNDERHEEDS that know JACK SHITE!!!!!
Comment by mama — Fri 9th August 2019 @ 11:49 am
I don’t believe there is such thing as accident pregnancy unless you are raped. Come on, let the child live.
P.S
Henry – https://www.roofingrepairswellington.kiwi/
Comment by Henry — Fri 9th October 2020 @ 6:37 pm
@Henry.
Unplanned pregnancy does occur. The evidence is obvious in that about 1/4 of pregnancy results in abortion. So in regard to the female a minimum of 1/4 pregnancy is 100% accidental as logic dictates they would not abort if they planed the pregnancy.
Next is unplanned pregnancy resulting in birth. Studies show this at 40% to 60% of births. The low figure comes from a NZ MSD study. That study included couples and solo mum’s. No solo dad’s were included. Also 100% of the male answers we identical the the mothers, so they we obviously interviewed together.
Never in the history of mankind has a study been done to establish what % of those “unplanned pregnancy” were planned by the female, but not by the male. IE the sex crime rate. This is a banned subject, resulting in the arrest, or PSO of males who object to what’s happened.
Evidence exists of the truth of what’s happening. Firstly most females who have unplanned pregnancy abort. What % is unknown. Secondly there is a vast difference between contraceptive rates of failure and actual pregnancy rates. Condoms being a blatant example.
Condoms fail at less than 2%. IE a male using there only method of contraceptive should expect a pregnancy once every 50 years. The actual rate is about every 5 years. If a condom does break “100% obvious” then the female can then take the morning after pill or abortion pill. IE there should be no unplanned pregnancy from condom use.
So what is happening? The only possible answer is dishonesty. Either the male is not the father or some version of stealthing has occurred. Simply put logic dictates only one possible answer. Females retrieve the condom after the male leaves the scene.
The female pill is also subject to failure rates vastly larger than reality. Fraud is epidemic.
Males are subject to an epidemic of female sex offending on this issue. The Crown bring the enabler, the enforcer, the punisher, and profits from the offending.
Males deserve to be protected from this Crime Against Humanity.
Comment by DJ Ward — Wed 14th October 2020 @ 8:58 am
Big day in the US today.
It’s causing more upset than the inaugural Matariki.
Comment by Evan Myers — Sat 25th June 2022 @ 12:00 pm
I’m pregnant, it’s not my fault and I shouldn’t be subjected to the indignity of a pregnancy I don’t want which is fine because the unborn is not recognised as life until after birth.
They got away with it for long enough, didn’t they?
Comment by Downunder — Sat 25th June 2022 @ 3:50 pm
Politically stunning to see both the New Zealand Prime Minister and our Foreign Minister, both women incidentally wailing loudly at a constitutional decision of the US Supreme Court around Wade v Roe.
On the other hand the feminist collective voice that supposedly represents all women and this human or legal right to something called “Choice”.
That indicates a position where Ardern sees the UN “management of rights” as being superior to national sovereignty.
But at the same time we have a prime minister supporting a foreign minister claiming indigenous sovereignty as the lead country on that issue.
We have no rational governance whatsoever!
And most certainly male exclusion from this “right of choice” and political exclusion of a right to choice when we disagree with our government … and whoever they represent?
Comment by Evan Myers — Sun 26th June 2022 @ 9:12 am
It’s definitely, interesting times.
I keep hearing, abortion was removed from the constitution.
But it never was in, the constitution.
Personally I think strict, no abortions is crazy.
Maybe in time, states with strict anti abortion laws.
Will trend at least, to allowing early pill abortions.
How do you stop that, if it can arrive in the mail.
Maybe surgical abortions, is going to far for them.
The real issue, is late term abortions.
A child raped, may not know until 20 weeks.
A medical test, may expose the baby will kill the mother.
Or expose the baby, as having severe illness.
At some point, the baby can be birthed and live.
All that changes, is the procedure.
So for late abortions, without good cause.
The baby can be birthed, and the baby can live.
It is hard to argue, that abortion then becomes murder.
At a government level, abortion is a population setting.
Without abortion, birth rates will be higher.
NZ having legal abortion, has below replacement birth rates.
So if birth rates are out of control, abortion is likely illegal.
And if rates are to low, abortion is likely a free procedure.
You may go from 20 weeks to 16 weeks, to have more babies.
Comment by DJ Ward — Sun 26th June 2022 @ 6:03 pm
For those who haven’t come across this, pro-abortion reasoning has already been extended to justify ‘after-birth abortion’ or ‘postpartum abortion’. (Note that the tern ‘postpartum abortion’ is also used in research to describe abortion of a foetus conceived soon after a previous childbirth.)
While killing born babies has not yet been legalized in the developed world (it was legal in many societies and probably remains so in places, e.g. as sacrifices to some god), an approximation has already been used to kill unborn babies later in pregnancy. This is called ‘partial-birth abortion’ and involves the mother’s cervix being dilated and the foetus partially pulled out feet first, its skull punctured and compressed while still inside the mother before the foetus is fully pulled out, now dead or dying. Why the head needs to be punctured whilst still inside the mother is unclear; could it be simply to be able to call it an abortion rather than murder of a born baby that might have survived? This method was invented because killing a foetus later in pregnancy usually requires it to be dismembered in the womb and the subsequent extraction of severed limbs etc risks damaging the mother’s cervix and future reproductive ability. Note that New Zealand’s latest abortion-on-demand law includes no limit whatsoever on what stage of pregnancy abortions can be legally undertaken. We can therefore expect late-term abortions to increase as medical procedures such as partial-birth abortions are developed.
Chloe Swarbrick and other feminist speakers repeatedly referred to abortion as ‘healthcare’. My gang-affiliated neighbours frequently have loud (mainly through shouting, fighting, vandalism and so forth) all-night parties thereby damaging my mental and physical health (and my ability to work and pay the taxes that pay for their welfare benefits and subsidize their rent). So according to the pro-abortion argument I should have the right to have the state kill them off as a healthcare intervention.
Nanaia Mahuta described the US Supreme Court decsion as ‘draconian’. Well actually it was a legal interpretation of a Constitution that has served the US people very well. Ms Mahuta may be somewhat confused about the definition of ‘draconian’. The term would actually apply more correctly to laws entitling women to have the state, at taxpayers’ expense, kill developing babies. A post published on the freely-available ‘ideasroom’ site was sensible:
To make things clear, we are not anti abortion. However, we don’t agree with abortion on demand without some formal approval process, that it needs to be funded by taxpayers unless justified by personal circumstances, and most importantly that it completely ignores fathers and fails to provide them with any ‘reproductive rights’ apart from trying to ensure contraception. Regarding potential children, the fathers’ mental and physical health is placed entirely in the hands of women.
Comment by Ministry of Men's Affairs — Sat 2nd July 2022 @ 2:13 pm