By Victor C Kirk
I am a pragmatic male and as such believe I am limited in my role in procreation. I provide the sperm that fertilize the egg. After its mad dash from my testicle, the female egg takes over and the birthing process begins. If I were not a “senior” adult male one would want to believe that I am through after ejaculating the sperm into the female uterus. But I am not. However, my lack of understanding as to why an abortion becomes so controversial is perhaps a small peek into the narrow minds of many males when the decision to give birth or arresting/delaying/terminating the process is being contemplated by the female.
I would think that if there was an unwanted pregnancy a safe process or method to change the trajectory of the life of a woman would be universally accepted. To me, the decision is clearly one of “yes” I will or “no” I will not bring to life this embryo and is a singular decision of the woman. There may be several reasons that form the foundation of her decision – a one night encounter, enjoying her “friend with intimate options” and a denial that fertility was even a concern, a realization that rearing a child alone at this juncture in your life is not an option, or the mate chosen at one point in life has not evolved into the mate of your dreams, or the dream became a caustic union and having a child is a decision far removed from “this” union. Modern medicine has clearly provided a ‘choice” when a devastating genetic abnormality is detected and most folk would understand a decision to “terminate” a pregnancy in this instance. But we also know there are other reasons to disband a pregnancy – a traumatic event that robbed the female of “choice” in the sexual encounter or the family is faced with a terrible choice between the life of the mother or the life of the child.
I am not Catholic, so I do not understand the religious underpinnings of the “choice” debate. I would think that the “God” I worship, is more understanding of the human experience and our collective and singular shortcomings. I do not believe that “my” Lord and Savior would force a female to give birth regardless of one’s mental status or support preparation. “My” Lord and Savior would give one the strength to make a decision that is in the best interest of the unborn and the bearer of the “seed’. The laws of the land should take a second seat and defer to the decision of the “bearer of the seed” to move forward or discontinue the cycle of life.
But I am a male. I am not designed to give birth, so the decision to abort or not becomes a theoretical exercise – my opinion without the benefit of experience or ability to “stand in the shoes of a woman” and speak with any sense of authority is muted and should be. So, does this mean that varying state Legislatures and Congress and the Supreme Court should defer the abortion debate to its female members? Proportional representation could be used to level the field and balance the debate.
Weighting the vote or voice of the “affected” verses the “impacted” could resolve the present conflict and silence those whose “opinion” should be relegated to an afterthought not sought or not appropriate for the legislative debate.
I am not punting the ball but acknowledging our shortcomings as men. We are not equipped to have an equal standing in this debate. We, therefore, should defer to the “affected” not the “impacted”.
