Skip to main content

Dear Abortion Advocates, You Do Not Get To Choose Which Men Have A Say About Abortion

Dear abortion advocates,

Some people in this world are hypocrites. This is especially true of those who tell men that they should stay out of the abortion debate. Such a position is not only hypocritical, but also a textbook example of sexism, if it is to be taken at its face value. This argument denies "choice" to one gender based solely upon his gender. It denies a basic right to men simply because they are men. Pardon me if I do not "shut up" about this issue.

There are several valid reasons for men to be involved in denouncing abortion:

1.) Abortion advocates do not get to choose which men have a say in the abortion debate.
2.) The First Amendment guarantees a man's right to speak against abortion.
3.) Women cannot get pregnant without men.
4.) Men suffer trauma from abortions.
5.) Many men use abortion as a way to exploit women.
6.) There is a moral imperative that requires us to speak against infanticide.

Let us look at these one at a time.

First, abortion advocates do not have the right to choose which men have a say in the abortion debate. Here is my question for abortion advocates: Do you believe ALL men should stay out of the abortion debate, or only men who disagree with you? You have your choice. Which one is it?

If many abortion advocates are honest, they only want men who disagree with them to stay out of the abortion debate. However, if they are advocating for abortion, they most likely also accept the Roe v. Wade and Doe v. Bolton decisions that came before the Supreme Court. There is a major problem for abortion advocates who say that men should stay out of the abortion debate: both Roe v. Wade and Doe v. Bolton were decided by an exclusively male Supreme Court. There were NO female Justices on the Supreme Court at the time these cases were decided. If abortion advocates really want men to stay out of the abortion debate, they should have no problem fighting to overturn these cases until we have an exclusively-female Supreme Court. They will not fight to have these cases overturned, because in reality, they only want those who disagree with them to shut up. In reality, those who tell men to stay out of the abortion debate are using a tactic, not an argument. They are attempting to bully men into silence, not provide a rational argument for their position.

Someone may be saying, "Travis, the Supreme Court is an exception to the rule here. They decided to let women have a say on whether or not to get an abortion." This is false. The court never ruled that women had a "right to an abortion." Regardless, this is a cop-out answer. This is another way of saying that you only want men who disagree with you to be silent about abortion. If you were logically consistent, it would not matter to you what the court said, or did not say. If you honestly believed that all men should stay out of the abortion debate, you wouldn't even care about how they ruled. It is absolutely hypocritical to allow the Justices in the Roe v Wade and Doe v Bolton cases a voice, yet deny men who disagree with these rulings a voice. When you start to fight against Roe v. Wade and Doe v. Bolton, I will start to take this objection more seriously.

Second, men have a right to speak about abortion which is guaranteed by the First Amendment to the United States Constitution. The First Amendment guarantees the right to free speech for every American citizen. This includes men (who are American citizens) who speak about abortion. You may not like what someone says, but you have to accept their right to say it. In fact, several landmark cases, including the Supreme Court case Brandenburg v. Ohio, have reinforced the concept that the vast, vast, vast, vast, vast, VAST majority of speech is protected. According to the Brandenburg case that came before the Supreme Court in 1969, free speech includes pretty much everything except credible threats of violence (ie, "I'm going to beat the snot out of you if you make me angry," and other similar speech). Everything else is protected. Other cases throughout the history of the United States have come to similar conclusions. No matter how you may "feel" about the situation, I have every right to speak out against the slaughter of children.

The First Amendment does not discriminate based on gender. It never has, and never will. There is absolutely no valid reason to deny men a voice in the abortion debate because you think there is some magical exception to the First Amendment that prevents men from speaking about abortion. There is no such exception.

Third, men have a say about abortion because men play a part in creating the life that is aborted. The child that is killed in an abortion is genetically just as much a part of the man as he or she is of the woman. This has always been the case, and always will be. You can deny this fact, but it does not change anything.

Men deserve a voice in the abortion debate because their child is the one who is aborted. The child that dies in an abortion is just as much the man's child as he or she is the woman's child. To tell men that they must "shut up" about their child being aborted is to add insult to injury. It is one of the most hateful things that can be done to a man facing this situation. Yet it is far too common among abortion advocates.

This leads me to my fourth point. Men suffer trauma from knowing that their child was aborted. Men grieve over the child they have lost. Men often suffer depression after knowing that their child's life was taken. Some men suffer from PTSD after knowing their child was killed and they had no say. Studies have shown that men who have faced the trauma of abortion are more likely to turn to drugs and have a higher risk of suicide. The psychological trauma that men suffer after an abortion is horrible to say the least. To tell a man that he has to be quiet and suffer these things because you believe his voice is not worth hearing is nothing short of abuse.

Fifth, men have used abortion as a way to exploit women. For many men, it is a way to escape responsibility for childish actions. Men who want to have sex, but do not want the responsibility of raising or paying for a child, often push abortion on their significant other in order to avoid this responsibility. This also happens as a result of sex trafficking. According to the CIA (1), there are potentially 450,000 people who are trafficked in the United States alone. Approximately 55% of those who are trafficked will be compelled to have an abortion (2). Because of this, it is imperative that men speak up against this abuse. Men who are normal and decent have a responsibility to speak up against the men who exploit and use women by forcing them into an abortion. Those who refuse to stand up to this abuse--both men and women--are complicit in its continuance

If we allow that men can speak up against abortion in these circumstances, it becomes incredibly difficult to defend the idea that men cannot speak up in other circumstances. In the same way that you don't get to choose WHICH men speak up about abortion, you also don't get to choose WHEN men speak up about abortion. You have no inherent authority in you that compels me to remain silent. If you oppose men speaking out against abortion, then to be logically consistent, you must also have a problem with men speaking out against coerced and forced abortions. This is an absolutely absurd an immoral stance to take.

Finally, men have a right to speak up against abortion because there is a moral imperative to stand up against infanticide. Men have just as much right to speak up against abortion as you do to speak up if someone is trying to kill your neighbor. Refusing to speak up is not brave. It is not right. It is not moral. It is not decent. It is not good. It is cowardly. To remain silent when there is a grave moral evil occurring does not make you a good man. It makes you complicit in allowing that moral evil to continue. Therefore, it is imperative that men speak up to stop this moral evil.

To summarize: You may not like what many of us have to say about the slaughter of the unborn, but we have a fundamental right to speak out against this atrocity. As long as abortion happens, you can expect to hear my fellow pro-life men speak out against it.





Popular posts from this blog

5 Things That Are Best Explained By Theism

When discussing my faith with non-believers, I find that the average person is oblivious to the explanatory scope of theism. That is, God's existence explains several things that would be difficult to explain in any other way. In this post, I am not presenting any formal arguments, but am just pointing out what these things are. Arguments will be addressed in subsequent posts.

1. The Origin of the Universe

Neither atheism, nor alternative views of God can adequately explain the origin of the universe. Modern science has lead us to the conclusion that the space-time universe that we inhabit had a definite beginning some 14 billion years ago (give or take a little). The problem for the atheist comes when we realize that any contingent thing has an explanation for its existence that is not found within itself, and that if something had a beginning or could have failed to exist (which describes the universe), it is by its very nature contingent. Neither do other views of God adequatel…

7 Problems With "Lack-Theism" Atheism

In recent years, atheists have increasingly attempted to redefine the words "atheism" and "atheist". Now, rather than being the negative position on the question of God's existence, many atheists have redefined atheism to be a mere "lack of belief" in God. They do not seem to care that there was already a term for this position ("non-theism"). This is often done in an attempt to avoid the burden of proof that comes from taking the negative position on God's existence. Yet, in attempting to eliminate this burden of proof, the one who redefines atheism in this manner has jumped from the frying pan into the fire. Here are 7 reasons why this definition of atheism is problematic for those who use this definition:

1. It Is Rooted In The Etymological Fallacy

In order to justify this redefinition, many atheists will appeal to the etymology of the word "atheist." The term "atheist" comes from two Greek roots, "a-" me…

Why Does God Condemn Homosexuality?

Q: Why would God create someone as a homosexual and then condemn them to hell for all eternity for it?

A: This is a question that I have heard more than one person ask. I suspect that there are more who want to ask this question, but have not had the courage to ask me. I think it is important that we clarify a few points before we go any further. Let me begin this post by making a distinction between a person's sexual orientation and their actions. A person's sexual orientation is the individual's preference. A person can engage in actions contrary to their preference. Thus, we must draw a distinction between the two.

It is also vital that we understand what the Bible actually condemns. The reason that I drew the distinction above is so that I can make this point: the Bible does not condemn a person's orientation. My challenge to anyone on either side of this debate is to find a passage of Scripture that clearly condemns a person's orientation. Such a passage does n…