Tone-Deaf Washington Post Column Praises Abortion’s Benefits to Men

Yes, abortion "benefits" men in a way — precisely because it absolves them of their responsibility to women and their own children.

A man wears tape over his mouth during protests at the 44th annual March for Life on January 27, 2017 in Washington, DC.

By Liberty McArtor Published on July 12, 2018

“Men should worry about the future of Roe v. Wade, too,” a recent Washington Post headline tells us.

“For decades, men have benefited from the availability of safe and legal abortion. It’s time for men to start taking threats to reproductive freedom personally,” law professor Nancy Leong writes.

Her column is painfully tone-deaf. First, she ignores an important fact: Yes, abortion “benefits” men in a way — precisely because it absolves them of their responsibility to women and their own children. That doesn’t empower women or anyone. Second, the way she extols abortion for allowing men to live “much better” lives is grossly anti-fatherhood and anti-child.

Abortion Enables Men to Be Selfish

Just last week I called out women who refuse to date or sleep with men who don’t support abortion. “Liberal gals may feel they’re setting high standards for potential male companions,” I wrote. “But sadly, they’re playing right into the hands of a system that hurts women.”

Further:

Why would a man like Hugh Hefner, who built his empire on the male objectification of women, champion birth control and abortion? Because it made it easier for men like himself and his customers to enjoy consequence-free sex. … Such men know that, thanks to abortion, they’ll never have to take responsibility for their life-creating act.

Leong confirms all of this, but tries to make it a good thing. She writes:

A partner’s abortion has enabled men to finish school, allowed men to pursue their chosen careers, saved men from the loss of a spouse because of medical complications, kept men from economic hardship and spared men the emotional burden of unwanted parenthood.

With exception to avoiding the loss of a spouse, which is a heart-wrenching issue, all of these “benefits” could be summed up this way: “A partner’s abortion has enabled men to be selfish, immature, and shirk their responsibilities.”

Men Equal Decision Makers in Abortion? Not So Fast

Leong also makes this observation: “Research by Arthur Shostak and his colleagues found that about half of women are accompanied to abortion waiting rooms by men, indicating they are involved in the process of choosing and seeking abortion care.”

It’s ludicrous to suggest that simply because a man accompanies a woman to an abortion facility, his involvement is somehow healthy. There’s evidence proving quite the opposite.

Consider this recent investigation by Live Action. It uncovers multiple instances around the nation where sexual abusers — including fathers — brought minors to abortion facilities and went unreported. Many of them were able to return home with their victim and continue abusing her for years to come.

Or what about this anecdote in The New York Times?

My now-ex husband drove me to a now-closed clinic, off Route 9 in Boston. I recall sitting behind him in the car ride down — rather than beside him — because this abortion was his idea.

We entered the waiting room, where my husband paid for the abortion. For over an hour I wept in a chair beside him. I could not complete the intake form. I could not check off the small box in the lower corner of the page asking about coercion.

Do abortion advocates ever stop to consider how such rhetoric might impact “unplanned” children alive today? Whether their insistence that unplanned pregnancies ruin lives might affect a child’s self-esteem — or even make them question the value of their own life?

This anecdote isn’t a one-off. It happens a lot. As I wrote last week:

When I discovered I was pregnant, I joined an online forum of other pregnant moms from around the nation who are due the same month as me. In those early weeks, I was shocked at an extremely common post in the forum.

It usually went something like this: I just found out I’m pregnant. My boyfriend says he’ll break up with me if I don’t abort. I really want to keep the baby, but I’m afraid of losing him. What do I do? …

In one particularly heartbreaking post, a woman shared how the baby’s father repeatedly pressured her to abort against her will. It escalated when he threatened to push her down the stairs to kill the unborn child.

But Leong doesn’t talk about any of that. Having a man in the waiting room with the woman they impregnated must be a good thing. After all, getting rid of that unborn child will “greatly benefit” his career, economical and emotional prospects!

What Are “Unplanned” Kids Supposed to Think About Themselves?

Which brings us to the last point. Leong and other abortion advocates often remind us that we all know and care about a someone who has gone through abortion. Something they don’t say? We all know someone — likely multiple someones — whose life was “unplanned.” It might be our parents. Our own children. Even us.

Babies surprise parents every year, despite the increased use of contraception. And this is where we get to the meat of what abortion advocates are actually arguing: Our lives, are wishes, our selfish pursuits are more important than the life of the little human we created, because we’re grown and he’s small and easily disposed of.

And if their legal right to dispose of their own child is threatened? Our lives will be ruined!

Help us champion truth, freedom, limited government and human dignity. Support The Stream »

The way Leong and other abortion advocates talk, children are the enemy. Do they ever stop to consider how such rhetoric might impact “unplanned” children alive today? Whether their insistence that unplanned pregnancies ruin lives might affect a child’s self-esteem — or even make them question the value of their own life? What is a child to think if an adult tells them their existence likely ruined their father’s future?

We don’t need men advocating for abortion. We need men advocating for life. Sharing stories of unplanned pregnancies and difficult circumstances — and how they overcame them for the sake of their child. We definitely shouldn’t encourage more men to capitalize on a system that harms women and children. And that’s unfortunately what Leong’s column does.

Print Friendly
Comments ()
The Stream encourages comments, whether in agreement with the article or not. However, comments that violate our commenting rules or terms of use will be removed. Any commenter who repeatedly violates these rules and terms of use will be blocked from commenting. Comments on The Stream are hosted by Disqus, with logins available through Disqus, Facebook, Twitter or G+ accounts. You must log in to comment. Please flag any comments you see breaking the rules. More detail is available here.
  • Karen

    Plenty of kids born before 1973 were told by their parents that their existence ruined the parents lives. Whatever arguments you have against abortion, the idea that parents always welcomed kids before 1973 is definitely not a valid one.

    • I was born in 1951 and never, never heard either a parent or a kid even hint that the kid’s existence ruined the parents’ lives. I did, however, know a few kids that were “accidents,” but whose parents were grateful for that “accident.” I’m sure you can find examples to support your case, but I never encountered any prior to 1973, so I am skeptical of the “plenty,” at least in a relative sense.. I have, however, encountered a few examples since. Perhaps Roe’s degrading of human life and family responsibilities contributed to that attitude post-1973.

      • Karen

        Humans are often terrible, and no law is going to change that. I’m glad you were lucky, but please acknowledge that it was nothing but luck.

        • Nope, I’m not going to say it was luck. I believe it was typical for back then. But perhaps you will acknowledge that your examples – of which you didn’t actually provide any – were nothing but bad luck. I do believe that more negative examples can be found today – in spite of the availability of abortion – than prior to 1973, for the reasons I stated above.

      • James

        Perhaps lower expectations pre-1973 meant that there was less to ruin.

    • Liberty McArtor

      Karen, good point. It’s tragic when any parent doesn’t love and welcome their kids — and this has happened since the dawn of time, since humans are sinful. (Just to be clear, I never argued that all parents welcomed their kids before Roe v. Wade.)

      But it’s also tragic when people describe children as a life-ruining burden, for the sake of abortion. And today, as the pro-abortion movement grows more frantic,that kind of rhetoric is becoming more and more mainstream. We should challenge that kind of rhetoric any time we encounter it, including when it’s coming from the pro-abortion crowd.

    • Irene Neuner

      Someone would need a pretty calloused heart to hate a baby. To wish it dead. I think most men and women justify abortion by make believing the the baby is not a not a baby.

  • Brand New Key

    Men who shun emotional commitment have always favored abortion. It benefits men much more than it benefits women.

  • Paul

    My guess is the approximately 30 million males aborted in the US would see things differently.

  • JP

    Excellent article. The pro abort women are playing into the hands of men who want sex without consequences. The men love abortion.

Inspiration
Am I a Bigot?
Dudley Hall
More from The Stream
Connect with Us