Judge Says Man Not Be Responsible for Unwanted Baby

I recently encountered a pro-choice statement that has gone viral. Gabrielle Stanley Blair, a mother of half-dozen from California, argued that  "men are 100% responsible for unwanted pregnancies."

You lot can read her unabridged statement here. Blair's basic premise is that women face unplanned pregnancies because men are "irresponsible" with their sperm. This irresponsibility causes all unplanned pregnancies and abortions. She proceeds to advocate for universal male person contraception usage and proposes requiring any man who causes an unplanned pregnancy to exist castrated.  Blair writes, "Does castration seem like a savage and unusual punishment? Definitely. Only is information technology worse than forcing 500,000 women a year to puke daily for months, gain 40 pounds, and then rip their bodies apart in childbirth?" She insists that such a law would eliminate unplanned pregnancy and abortion.

There are several glaring logical inconsistencies in her argument. First, Blair accepts the sexual revolution'southward sexual ideals; that sexual practice is in inherently an amoral act that can and should be engaged in by any consenting developed, but she denies that this agency comes with responsibility. For Blair, women and men have sexual bureau, but only men bear responsibility for their conclusion, not women.

Agency brings responsibility—you can't take one without the other. Women, like Blair, who are concerned with the harmful side effects of female birth command options should simply accept sexual practice with men they trust to habiliment the level of protection they are comfortable with. If a human being wishes to be "irresponsible" with sex, then women tin choose non to appoint in sexual relationships with those men. Undoubtedly, Blair and her allies are painfully aware that such trust is extremely difficult in our hookup civilization. Afterwards all, it is very difficult to know what a man'due south thoughts and feelings well-nigh birth control are if y'all just "swiped right" a few moments before. To know a human's views about contraception, you need to offset know the man. Such knowledge come from human relationship, increasingly a relic from our more "conservative" sexual past.

As a pro abundant life person, I assert that sexual intimacy was designed for, and is best enjoyed in, the context of a marriage between a human being and woman committed to each other for life. What Blair misses is that matrimony is meant to provide the environs for relationships to flourish and empathy to grow. Over time, husbands and wives can adjust their sexual expectations and preferences to the needs of ane another and learn to pursue mutual enjoyment and satisfaction, not mutual consequences. Instead of that ideal, Blair offers the states a radical pursuit of equality in experience.

For Blair, sexual justice can merely exist achieved if women and men both have the aforementioned sexual experience, carrying equal consequences. She spends a portion of her argument bemoaning the fact that women can go pregnant while men cannot. Blair views this as an inherent injustice in the sexual economy. Even so, this biological fact is not the mistake of men or women, but rather is due to their natural pattern.

The simple fact that individuals unremarkably receive different consequences from shared action should be obvious. A renter receives from his landlord the pleasure of a place to telephone call dwelling house and the landlord receives fiscal gain. The renter does not proceeds wealth from renting, the landlord does. However, there is nothing inherently "unjust" from a landlord and tenant human relationship. Besides, there is nothing inherently unjust almost the fact that women and men frequently take unlike consequences in sex, whether due to biology, physiology, psychology, or just basic preference. While Blair is correct that only women can become significant, this is non an obviously negative consequence of sex. For many women, pregnancy brings with it a host of positive natural experiences as they nurture and grow a human life inside their bodies. Men cannot experience whatever of these positive attributes of pregnancy or motherhood.

The virtually ironic portion of Blair's lengthy argument is that she simultaneously decries pro-life people for "policing women'south bodies" while arguing that men'southward bodies should be policed with forced castration or forced vasectomies. If information technology is immoral to control someone's body, information technology'southward however immoral if the trunk happens to belong to a homo.

Instead of saying that men are responsible for "100% of all unplanned pregnancies," we should talk about how men and women are responsible for unplanned pregnancy. How nascency command can and does fail, causing even those being "responsible with their sperm" to impregnate their partner. How no amount of "planning parenthood" volition prevent all unplanned pregnancies.

Most chiefly, we should stop telling ourselves that sex is amoral and transactional and then complain when our experiences don't match our rhetoric.  It's time to render to the sacred tradition that held that sex was immensely moral and incredibly powerful. Interim like it's not doesn't help women or men.

burlingameshoebethe.blogspot.com

Source: https://www.care-net.org/abundant-life-blog/why-men-arent-responsible-for-100-of-unplanned-pregnancies

Share this post