HAVING IT BOTH WAYS -- Women, Fathers, & Abortion - 🙅✋

Having It Both Ways -- Or Taxation Without Representation

A husband goes to war and helps repel a brutal enemy that has invaded his homeland.  He spends two years in mortal combat – is twice wounded -- before successfully defeating the men who were bent on seizing his property. 

After returning home, he considers buying a very expensive new house, one that will place a heavy burden on the family’s finances for 20 years.  In fact, the financial burden will be so great as to insure that his wife will have to work full-time for the duration of the mortgage.

He does not discuss the decision with his wife, nor should he have to.  After all, he spent two years risking his life to defend their current home while the wife stood by.  Because of the immeasurable, life-threatening, sacrifices he made to defend his old home, the courts have rightly concluded that -- should he decide to buy the new home – the wife has no right to participate in that decision.  Rather, whether she likes it or not, she will be required to pay half of the mortgage payments and half of all expenses on the home for at least two decades.  This will apply even if she demands -- and gets -- a divorce.  She will still be obligated to pay “house support”.

This scenario, it seems to me, is much like what many women believe regarding abortion – that because the female is going to have to endure the very laborious (no pun intended) and somewhat dangerous burden of carrying the child for nine months -- that therefore the co-creating father should have no say whatsoever in the decision to have, or not have, the child

In fact -- obscenely -- the female isn’t even required to notify the male should she decide to have their co-created child eliminated. 

What makes this "autonomy" doubly unfair is that the female intends to have it both ways:  that not only does she have the right to dismiss the desires of the father, demanding sole responsibility for determining whether the child will or will not exist, but that she also has the right -- should she choose to allow the child be born -- to demand of the father 18 years of parental and financial co-responsibility.

My sense of justice vehemently disagrees with this self-serving rationale.  If the female prohibits the male from participating in the decision to have or not have, the child, it must follow that she absolves the male of any future responsibilities for the child.  Otherwise, this is – pure and simple -- taxation without representation.  Didn’t we fight a revolution over that?

I believe  -- from the very deepest part of my soul -- that the day will come when society looks back and equates the practice whereby the co-creating male has no right to decide whether or not his child lives -- with the ugliest, most vile kinds of discrimination.   

Feminist/PC Police keep a would-be father at bay while his wife

aborts their child.