Kathy Petersen’s Blog

Reproductive Justice

Posted in abortion, marriage by Kathy on February 15, 2008

I came across this term on a blog the other day. Of course, it was from an angry feminist who is mad that women can bear children and men can’t. Well, actually, I suppose it’s more that women run the risk of pregnancy every time they have sex (even if it’s not the right time of the month, and even if they’re on birth control), while men don’t. It’s really quite humorous to me (at least, it would be if they weren’t talking about murdering the most innocent among us humans), because I’m not really quite sure what all the hubbub is about. Really, who is perpetrating the injustice here? Are they mad at God for creating female humans like the female animals? Or are they evolutionists?–in which case, I guess they’re mad at chance for their life-bearing capabilities. How stupid is that?

But they use the term “justice” to imply that the division of the sexes is somehow unfair. So, logically, if there is a God who created this world and all that is in them, and created the sexes as they are, and created women but not men to be able to get pregnant from sex, their argument is really with God, not with the legal system of the United States or any other country. And, again logically, if there is no God, but everything happened by chance, and humans like the rest of the creatures just happened to come into being like this, then their argument is with a blind force, and again, not with the legal system. So why are they demanding “justice” from the legal system when the legal system has nothing to do with their reproductive capabilities? I don’t see infertile women trying to sue to have laws changed so that they can freely and easily reproduce. Why should fertile women try to change laws so that they can freely keep from reproducing by murdering their unborn children?

I fail to see the injustice of women bearing the responsibility of their actions. I can understand anger directed towards men who make babies and then leave, and don’t pay child support or anything like that. But there are laws on the books already against that. I can understand being angry at men who provide nothing but financial support for their offspring, just because they don’t want to do any more. And that’s not fair either. But doing away with the consequences of sex (the baby) doesn’t provide “fairness” because it’s still the woman who has to undergo the abortion, and run those risks. But women have to accept the responsibility that goes with the “right” to have sex. There are laws that can make men accept responsibility for making a baby (or at least make his life pretty miserable and difficult if he doesn’t); why cannot women be subject to similar laws?

The real beef these women have is that men don’t commit to the women they impregnate. So whose fault is that? Whose fault is it that women give free, cheap, or easy sex to men who have not committed to them? Feminists are pushing the line that women should be able to have commitment-free sex, just like men can; and they want to have pregnancy-free sex, to boot. Well, when women have commitment-free sex, they are actually playing into men’s lowest and worst natures. They are reaping what they sow. They are sowing husband-less sex and reaping fatherless children. Men are not forcing women to have sex. Abortion due to rape is rare. If women want men to commit to them and their children, then they need to require that commitment before they put out. End of story.

Advertisements

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: