If SCOTUS ends Roe, enforces motherhood, what about the men?
For the publisher: No one likes abortion, but some women privately decide to have one. Now a number of states – including Mississippi, whose 15-week abortion ban is in the US Supreme Court – claim to take that personal decision away from the individual. (“Please, Supreme Court, do not take away the right to abortion from any woman, anywhere”, editorial, November 29)
If these states do not want women to choose to terminate a pregnancy, they should make parenting a more viable choice by providing the financial and social support many women need to become mothers. If they think it is a woman who is solely responsible for the pregnancy, then they should address the constant pressures young women face from men who always push to have sex regardless of the consequences. consequences.
State efforts to enforce motherhood on women who become pregnant would be more credible if similar efforts were made to enforce fatherhood. Granted, that would be an invasion of a father’s privacy, but it’s no different from what is done to women.
If the father is unable to provide support, the state should be required to intervene, as it is the state that insists the pregnancy continue.
Margaret Hamilton, Portland
For the publisher: Let’s get to the heart of the abortion problem. It’s not that men just want to eliminate abortion – they want to continue to control women.
If the law provided that women would bear the child at birth and that men should assume all these expenses and be 100% responsible for the education and care of the child until adulthood , they would probably reverse their position.
It’s just another way of controlling women, by leveraging women’s sensitivity and invariably skipping financial and full-time babysitting responsibilities.
Wanda Dameron, Canoga Park
For the publisher: Your editorial states: “Putting control of abortion access entirely into the hands of capricious and politically motivated state legislators would be a devastating blow to women and their ability to control their own bodies.”
In this sentence, you gave us the reason for the horrible division that surrounds the right to abortion.
If we were talking about a woman’s finger or kidney, would we be having this discussion? Would anyone care if a woman decided to have surgery on any part of her body?
With abortion, we are not talking about another part of the body; we are talking about a human embryo which is a “discrete entity”. Simply put, a human embryo or fetus is another body that grows inside and depends on a woman, but is not a part of her. It is a separate living human organism.
It is imperative for a woman to be able to choose to bear a child as this choice can have a huge impact on her life. But abortion as a solution is unacceptable to many of us for many reasons.
So how do we solve this? We can start with the facts. It’s time to let go of the euphemisms.
Linda Mele Johnson, Long Beach
For the publisher: Your editorial quotes the Center for Reproductive Rights claim that abortion rights are “essential to gender equality.”
This is nonsense. The right to abortion is the clearest and most concrete example of gender inequality in US law.
In the vast majority of cases, the right to abortion is exercised not so much as a right to control one’s body, but almost entirely as a right to withdraw from parenthood. Yes, to exercise this right as a huge influence on the future of an individual; again, it is a right extended exclusively to women. It doesn’t sound like gender equality to me.
I am pro-choice, but I am also pro-truth. I accept the inequality established in Roe vs. Wade and recognize that the societal problems that would be created by extending the right not to be parentage to men would almost certainly outweigh the abstract value of gender equality.
But when I hear abortion rights defended as equal rights, I have to oppose them.
Peter Marston, Glendale