We focus on the "right of a woman to kill her unborn child. Sometimes we even admit there might be psychological problems after having an abortion. What we fail to do is to recognize that abortion also harms men, in general and in particular in their relations with and attitudes toward woman.

With the ease of abortions, men no longer have to think about the future. The self and its immediate gratification is the main purpose of sexual activity. It becomes a time of numbers and variety rather than commitment. One "scores" with each time as one scores in a basketball game and are "honored" for the same reason.

Unfortunately, the availability of abortions makes it easier for an immature man to bully or force a woman into having an abortion. In one survey, it was found that 31% of women seeking an abortion cite "partner related" as the reason, such term includes an abusive partner.

The ease of abortions leads to a lack of respect for the woman, as well as women in general. They become no more than an object to be conquered and then left for the next conquest. Women are thought to secretly welcome this attention and even if they don't, are expected to tolerate it, especially if they are in a subordinate position. We see this too often in the depictions of women in the movies, TV, books, and the overwhelming flood of pornography.

There is also the faux prostitution aspect as sex is an expected way of thanking the man for an evening out or a special occasion.

Abortion, aided by a culture that glorifies self in all aspects of life, seeks to change the character of a man from protector, provider and lover to, in effect, a sexual predator whose highest function as a protector or provider may be to pay for the abortion.

Fortunately, I don't think that the damage to the attitudes apply to all men. However, I feel that the damage to men be considered as another reason to end the heinous crime of abortion.

John Parsons,

Show Low


(12) comments


So what are you? Pro-life, or like most hypocrites Pro-birth. Once the child is born, just like so many fathers do, the child is forgotten. Women have the right to decide, and not old men that go to bed at 6 P.M.


I regret, John, that your life experiences have so distorted your views in this matter, as well as your jaundiced view of women as helpless victims or otherwise malleable pawns to be exploited. You are however co-mingling two things: 1) The law. 2) Choices.

The law, in this case the Constitution, establishes only a legal right to abortion but does not speak to whether or not someone should exercise that right. This is not uncommon at law. Many things are legal but the decision to exercise such rights are left, properly in a free society, to individuals or even states or corporations. Roe makes no mention of what decision a pregnant woman should make but sets certain reasonable limits beyond which that right is forfeit. This constitutional guarantee assures every woman that, in fact, the decision is hers and hers alone. Moreover, the law is not distracted by the extraneous circumstances you mention. Those are not matters of law but matters of morality, social mores, cultural conditions, and individual circumstances. Of course, it may also appertain that in their zeal to interfere in this right others may break other laws designed to protect us all from both harm and illegal interventions in our private affairs.

In addition, there is no compelling public interest which demands that any political jurisdiction be empowered to set aside this right and default the decision to temporary public employees, regardless of their personal interests. What is more, there can be no supremacy of any jurisdiction in this matter except federal. This is because, in matters of such gravity we, the majority, assert a fundamental right to ensure consistency of rights wherever circumstances may land us for residency. I am entitled to all the freedoms and protections of the Constitution without regard to what state I reside in.

The question of whether or not a woman should obtain an abortion is a complex matter which may involve the prospective father, the family (prospective grandparents), religious figures in the woman’s life, and others of influence with the pregnant person. Those matters are however beyond the reach of the law unless undue restrictions to access or other forms of coercion are involved.

Finally, definitional matters such as the beginning of life or exactly when a foetus obtains legal personhood are eternally debated with no agreement. As a matter of science, life requires three characteristics: Self organization, replication, and metabolism. Thus, it is true that life is present at conception; however, this has little legal import, because human cells can be alive in a petri dish without the assumption that those are legal persons, entitled to constitutional protections.


At the moment of conception when the male sperm, with twenty-three chromosomes, and female ovum, with twenty-three chromosomes, unite, to form a forty-six-chromosome human being existing with all the genetic information (DNA) needed to develop. No additional or new genetic information is added.

The unborn individual, sharing the same nature with all human beings, is unlike any individual who has been conceived before and is unlike any individual who will ever be conceived again.

Therefore abortion is murder.

Justice Blackmun who wrote the opinion of the court in Roe v. Wade admitted two things: 1) the court did not decide when life begins:

We need not resolve the difficult question of when life begins. When those trained in the respective disciplines of medicine, philosophy, and theology are unable to arrive at any consensus, the judiciary, at this point in the development of man’s knowledge, is not in a position to speculate as to the answer.

And 2) he admitted if the personhood of the unborn is established, the U.S. Constitution would guarantee the right to life:

If this suggestion of personhood is established, the appellant’s case [for abortion], of course, collapses, for the fetus’ right to life would then be guaranteed specifically by the [14th] Amendment.

Therefore abortion is murder.

These are just two reasons biologically and legally why abortion is murder. There are plenty more. And as Ron says human cells in a petri dish have no constitutional protections, I would counter that any person meddling with human cells be very mindful and careful as we do not know how many souls are created in a lab to be flushed down a drain. Life (and death) is a very serious issue.

Those against a woman as having the right to destroy her human life due to being inconvenient and unwanted are neither hypocrites or old men, but comprised of those that hold themselves accountable to the Creator of life.

Horse Rider

What will happen to all the unwanted babies who will remain unwanted after they are born? Somehow, I can't imagine their being raised in stable, loving homes by competent, committed parents. Women have reasons, both good and bad, for choosing abortion over birth. Making abortion illegal, even if it is successful, won't make the reasons go away.


Russ, You sound like a big hearted man with lots of love to give. It's written all over your comments. You are probably retired and have some savings put away. You probably have some extra time on your hands and experience a little loneliness. Why not adopt an abused child or a crack-baby? I'm sure you've considered this many times.


Russ: You have retreated, as usual, into your own myth (see my comments on myths, below) in order to justify the war on poor women which your argument supports. Your reason is entirely pretextual and based on deeply ingrained attitudes of the inferiority of the poor (many of colour) which is a cruel legacy dating back to pre-colonial England. Banning abortion will catastrophically impact poor women (and many around them) but will not decrease the overall abortion rate; therefore, reducing abortions cannot be the reason for the banning sought.

Second, you seek refuge in your particular mythological, supernatural entity which is part and parcel of the mythology which has been up to so much mischief among humans, time out of mind. You mention souls but do not define what those are, what they are made of, where they reside or just how they come into being. You also never seem to get around to the vexing question of theodicy which alone debunks the supernatural entities you mention. Your comments are almost entirely irrelevant because of the logical inconsistencies which bedevil your assertions.

You also claim the personal right to interpret the Constitution in any way which buttresses your beliefs but have no grounding in science or law. Murder is a legal definition of a violation of homicide laws but abortion is legal. It is a logical fallacy to claim that an act is both legal and a crime, one and at the same time. Second, it is a reasonable inference from the current case law that SCOTUS has made a de facto determination of legal personhood by specifying the first trimester limit (with certain exceptions) on abortion. Clearly the ruling implicitly makes that determination; else, there would be no such constraint necessary at law.

Finally, your personal opinions in this matter are opposed by the majority of Americans who want abortion rights to continue, with some constraints, which defines the current case. In a democracy, the majority rules and you in the minority have no purchase to unilaterally make you own law based on your particular mythology. I would prefer it if you would just keep your religion out of public policy making.


If we are going to insist on putting religious dogma into our political policy, how about this. If it has 46 chromosomes and a heartbeat, then it must be protected and provided every need from the moment it develops a heartbeat till it loses that heartbeat in death? So that means child support from conception. Life insurance, food, housing, medical care from conception on. No you can not lock children in cages. No you can not control women's bodies. No you can not ignore indigenous people. No you can not ignore the way we have treated other races for centuries. They all have 46 chromosomes and have heartbeats.


If you are against abortion for religious reasons or whatever, then don't have one. It's as simple as that. If you are talking about women you don't even know, then mind your own business!


How about a heartbeat bill. If a woman has a heartbeat, no one can take away her autonomous right to control of her body. If a child has a heartbeat, they can not be locked up in a cage at the border.




Whatever happened to "my body my choice" argument regarding the c-19 jab.? Also, what happened to the baby's choice?


Pcorathers: That is a logical fallacy which is called a false equivalency. The matter of choice in abortions has little to do with the “my body” argument. That is a form of sloganeering designed to convey a highly simplified language of protest in an exquisitely complex matter of constitutional law. This works well in the streets but not in courts of law. Even assuming the primacy of that slogan, there would still be no equivalency with a similar claim relative to public health policy, especially during a deadly pandemic.

The lawful termination of a pregnancy generates no public health menace for all other living persons; thus, there arises no such claim from that choice. You may argue that the total number of annual abortions is like pandemic deaths; however, you would have to prove that lawfully aborted foeti are equivalent to the killing of post-birth persons, which is a matter of opinion but not of science or law. The court also ruled that at no time within the history of western civilization had a society ever endowed a foetus with the rights of personhood; therefore (the Court not being empowered to create law from nothing) it could not so rule.

Conversely, the defiance of a legally mandated vaccine requirement endangers millions of others for the manifold reasons established in science; thus, no “my body” claim arises in the matter of pandemic control. Moreover, Roe does not require anyone to have an abortion but mere establishes the right to do so. What is at stake in Roe is who gets to make the choice. It is onerous in a marquee democracy for a handful of temporary employees of the government to arrogate unto themselves the power to decide such matters for women in defiance of both the law and public opinion.

On the other hand, the police power we grant to elected officials in order to implement public policy which brings science to bear in matters of epidemiology is ancient and well tested. There is no “my body” justification for the blatant choice to infect and kill others and we have ample historical precedence for this public safety measure. In some cases, even healthy persons may be subjected to quarantine in furtherance of public safety.

In Roe, the issue was the extent to which the state’s right to regulate in the public interest supervened a woman’s right to due process under the 5th and 14th amendments. The due process clause says that no person can be deprived of “life, liberty, or property, without due process of law.” SCOTUS found that a woman’s right to liberty and due process in the matter of abortion was superior to the state’s right to regulate but only up to the point of viability.

That is a reasonable adjudication of a controversial matter and I agree with the court.

Welcome to the discussion.

Keep it Clean. Please avoid obscene, vulgar, lewd, racist or sexually-oriented language.
Don't Threaten. Threats of harming another person will not be tolerated.
Be Truthful. Don't knowingly lie about anyone or anything.
Be Nice. No racism, sexism or any sort of -ism that is degrading to another person.
Be Proactive. Use the 'Report' link on each comment to let us know of abusive posts.
Share with Us. We'd love to hear eyewitness accounts, the history behind an article.