If you were looking for a better counterpoint than my personal bumbling through Dr. Keith Ablow’s “Abortion Veto” argument, check out Hrafnkell Haraldsson’s over at Politicus USA.
Admittedly, we’ve now linked you to two of the extremes – Ablow’s a Fox News guy representing the right wing, and Haraldsson is from a site that bills itself as “Real Liberal Politics.” So – somewhere in the middle, us fathers are thinking about the issue and wrestling with the implications.
Haraldsson acts as a great counterpoint to Ablow; Haraldsson argues that giving men a “veto” power in abortions doesn’t take rape or incest into account, and puts women into a “sexual slavery.” Now, what Haraldsson does, however, is play too far on the “other side.” Just as you get the feeling from Ablow’s article that it’s too easy for him to give the power to the man, you get the feeling that it’s too easy for Haraldsson to take it away. As I mentioned in my original summary of Ablow’s – it’s a tough issue…I think tougher than both men thought about. On one hand, you’ve got what happens now – a complex situation where the man is possibly not taken into account. But then on the other hand if there was a veto power, there’d be a whole ‘nother problem that could – yes – hit the level of “sexual slavery” as Haraldsson puts it.
What I would suggest is that we don’t live in either world – Ablow’s or Haraldsson’s. There’s got to be some median where men aren’t necessarily given a veto power – but some sort of power to raise concerns. I know, I know, by doing this it gets the state involved and getting the state involved means time and time means the baby ends up born before the paperwork is filed. I don’t know – I just don’t know the answer.
Wait – I got it! No more natural birth! All conception, fertilization and gestation done in a lab by a giant corporation! Sigh. It’s been hard dudes, but I figured it out.
Sauce: Politicus USA