Wednesday, July 12, 2017

The difference between pork and eggs...

I don't remember where I first read it, but this morning, I was reminded of a business fable involving chickens and pigs.  It goes something like this:

A pig and a chicken were walking together one day when the chicken said, "Hey, why don't we open a restaurant?"

The pig asked, "What would we serve?"

"How about bacon and eggs?" the chicken replied.

The pig thought about it for a moment and said, "No thanks.  I'd be committed, but you'd only be involved."

The story was intended to point out the difference in the commitment levels of the people involved in a business.  I was reminded of it because of an article I read yesterday about Sweden's decision to stop offering aid to "organizations yielding to an anti-abortion 'gag rule' which demands that health groups funded by the United States do not provide information about abortion."  I shared the article on Facebook with this comment.

I'm sick of men thinking they have the right to control when a woman gives birth.

That comment got a lot of "amens" in the form of likes.  But then another one of my male friends piped up with this...


I didn't actually see this comment until I woke up this morning because it was posted by a friend in the United States.  He ended up getting into an argument with one of my liberal feminist friends who has a tendency to be passionate about women's rights.  I'm not going to post their exchange because I wasn't involved in it.  What I will post is my response to the above comment.


I really hate it when a man answers the question about whether or not abortion should be outlawed with crap about having to pay child support.  To me, it's akin to the whole bacon and eggs anecdote.  There is an enormous difference between a man having to pay child support for a child he fathered and a woman having to give up a part of her body for the nine months it takes to make a baby.  Women can and do die in pregnancy or childbirth.  It's her health and her body on the line.  

A man's involvement in a pregnancy ends after he ejaculates.  He has the ability to literally walk away after his sperm has successfully fertilized the woman's egg.  A pregnant woman, on the other hand, can't walk away from that process if she intends to give birth.  When it comes to making babies, a woman is absolutely committed, just like a pig is committed when it's time to make bacon or sausage.

I do realize that it sucks when a man impregnates a woman and he actually wants the child; but the woman decides to terminate the pregnancy.  However, I cannot support forcing a woman to be pregnant, especially since she is the one who has to endure being pregnant and everything that comes with it.  

And honestly, a man who really resents having to financially support a woman he has impregnated should probably invest in a rubber vagina or something. Don't have unprotected sex with a fertile woman if you're not prepared to raise a child with her.  To me, it's as simple as that.  And before anyone gives me a ration of shit about this, let me remind my readers that I've actually practiced what I'm preaching.  I did not have intercourse until two weeks after my wedding day.  Granted, because I waited for sex, I missed out on the chance to have a baby the natural way.  However, to me, it was the responsible thing to do and I survived it just fine.  So did Bill.

Now, I know the vast majority of people are not going to do what I did.  Lots of young people have sex simply because it's fun for them.  In that case, both parties should be absolutely prepared to be responsible.  If you're a woman having sex for fun, use birth control.  If you're a man who doesn't want to be a father, use birth control.  It's very simple.  Sometimes shit happens and the woman gets pregnant anyway.  That is a risk, of course.  Just about every action carries with it a risk, though.  If you're an adult, you prepare for that risk and you don't try to force someone else to clean up your mess.

I really don't understand why men counter with arguments about being forced to pay child support as a reason why they should have a right to force women to stay pregnant.  If you are that disgusted by women who try to "trap" men with pregnancy, why would you be against abortion?  If you find women who stoop to such tactics that despicable, wouldn't it be better if she could elect to terminate the pregnancy so the two of you could go your separate ways?

I do think it's best when fathers man up and are fully involved with and responsible for their children.  However, I also understand that some men have sex with women they don't actually want to be with.  I know there are manipulative people out there and I do think there should be an "out" for either party in those circumstances.  Ultimately, what it really comes down to is being very careful and selective with whom you share your DNA.  If you don't want to be a parent, don't have unprotected sex.  It's very, very simple.  And ideally, you should actually know and at least like your partner before you consent to bumping uglies with them.  Common sense, right?  Too bad more people don't have any.

4 comments:

  1. Some aspects of a man's right to input in regard to his unborn child are unfortunate (they suck, as you sum it up so well), but I agree that a woman has to have the final say over her body.

    My idea of how to get around the whole matter is that a person should practice either abstinence or should use a minimum of 2 highly reliable forms of birth control simultaneously if she is not prepared to deal with the complications to her life that pregnancy will bring. Pregnancy is still highly unlikely under such a scenario but since it's not impossible, it might be a good idea not to have sex too casually. There's no guarantee that anyone can successfully navigate the waters of co-parenting with any other person, but it's not a bad idea to consider that with every sex act that a child might ultimately become a part of the equation. A woman could end up bearing a child who has half of the DNA of any person with whom she has sex. It's a good idea to consider the possibility of co-mingling of that DNA with every sex act. I'm not ragging on anyone for the moral aspect of having sex that I might see as too casual, but more for the practical aspect of what the end result might be.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Yeah, I see it in a practical way, too. One reason why I abstained, besides the fact that apparently no one wanted to have sex with me, is that it made my life a lot simpler. I never had to worry anything involving sex because I wasn't having it.

      But yes, I think people who do have it and aren't interested in being parents should take steps to make sure they won't end up being parents.

      Delete
    2. I personally believe that the hormonal forms of contraceptives are extremely reliable if taken exactly as directed -- not the mini-pill, but the combo pill, implants and all. By the time a barrier method is added, a person probably won't get pregnant. If it's the right barrier method, she probably won't pick up a disease, either. I'm not willing to skip the barrier method anyway because there's no one out there that I trust enough at this point. I don't want some pesky condition, maybe even for the rest of my life, because a guy lies to me abut what he does or does not have, or maybe doesn't even know about what he has yet. Once the guy's ready to make a serious commitment, MAYBE he can be trusted, but not before. With everything we know now, why would anyone in a non-third-world location involve a child?

      Delete
    3. The world sucks anyway. No need to bring an innocent baby into the mix.

      Delete

Comments on older posts will be moderated until further notice.