Male responsibility and authority in abortion

This idea has been with me for many years. It concerns the abortion decision and the inconsistency of allowing a woman to unilaterally choose to abort and not allowing the man any legal right in the decision. The inconsistency is that if the woman chooses to have the baby, the father can be held responsible for child support. The man has no voice, no options. If men are not allowed to reject their legal responsibilities for child support, then it makes no sense to allow women to reject the father's role in deciding upon an abortion. The sperm was not a gift; the male is a partner in the creation of life.

Fact: The science is that life begins at conception. This is a fact, not an opinion, not a mere 'religious belief' imposed to control women who want an abortion. Roe v Wade was decided on the concept of 'privacy,' and not upon the fact of life at conception. Women who argue for the right to abortion as control of their own body are effectively making the same argument that slave owners could make as to one of their slaves: He is my property and I can dispose of my property as I will. Yes, the woman is not arguing that the fetus is her 'property,' as she sees the fetus as simply a growth of cells or tissue in her body, yet the fetus is being treated as property. A fetus is not a cancerous growth; it is the start of life. And it did not happen on its own. A sperm cell is required, and only males produce those sperm cells. The father had the same role in creating this fetus/person/property as did the mother. The make sperm and the female egg alone are not viable life forms; the fertilized egg is a sustainable life form, even if it were to be removed from the uterus immediately after conception.

Imagine that science and innovation provided us with an artificial womb, a sort of incubator for fertilized eggs, just as agricultural science and technology created incubators to grow fertilized eggs into chicks. The fertilized egg left the hen well before the egg hatched. Science has provided an alternative to the hen performing her instinctive task to warm and protect the fertilized egg. Something akin to a chicken incubator would create a significant alternative to abortion. The question remains, "Who decides?" Or, put another way, "Who has the right to decide what becomes of the fertilized human embryo.?"

My favorite former Jesuit, Fr Hank, once summed up his concept of choice as it relates to sex and abortion: He is pro-choice in deciding with whom you have sex; after sex, there is no choice.

When Obama said had his daughter "made a mistake" and got pregnant, he believed that she should not be 'punished' with having to carry the baby to term. In fact, his daughter having sex was either her choice or a crime against her; in either case a new life created by the choice or the crime is still a life. If there is to be a mistake, it would be to have an abortion.

The problem is that any Democrat or pro-abortion individual who likes to claim the importance of the "settled science" is woefully uneducated or even willingly blind to their true biases, be it in claiming that "climate change" is "settled science" or a meaningless "scientific consensus," or in claiming that human life when the mother and her doctor decide it is life, or when claiming that gender is a personal choice rather than a biological, scientific fact. Giving a person the right to declare that he or she is whichever gender he or she prefers as her identity, or how he or she "presents" himself or herself to the world, does not change the science, the science that says gender is in your chromosomes, not in your mind.

The "progressive" tyrannical Left has taken America and much of the western world down a dark, nightmarish path, all the time claiming that the "other side" consists of fascists, deniers of science, and people bent on destroying democracy when, in fact, the "Right" insists on certain, basic human rights, based on enlightenment and science, and not upon minority rule or the abrogation of science in favor of political whim.