Home
Archive
Columnists
Video
Blogs
Discuss
About
Search
Donate
Advertise
Advertisement
Advertisement
Advertisement
Advertisement
Register to Vote: Rock the Vote, powered by Working Assets Wireless
  • AlterNetYour turn

Support AlterNet
Do you value the information you're getting from AlterNet? Please show your support with a tax-deductible donation.


Feedback
Tell us how we're doing.

Anti-Choice Men Say: "I Had An Abortion."

Posted by Melissa McEwan, Shakesville at 11:05 AM on January 8, 2008.


Anti-choice men say that abortion is about them, too -- but they seem to forget all about the women involved.
narallogo

Share and save this post:
Digg iconDelicious iconReddit iconFark iconYahoo! iconNewsvine! iconFacebook iconNewsTrust icon

Got a tip for a post?:
Email us | Anonymous form

Get PEEK in your
mailbox!

 

The LA Times offers up an absolutely infuriating profile of "post-abortive men"—which, despite what the name suggests, are not men who were born after being aborted, but MRAs who are getting involved in the anti-choice movement, via the bullshit "post-abortion syndrome" fallacy, by whining about how men are traumatized by abortions, too—which, naturally, means that women shouldn't be allowed to have them.

I could take you point-by-point through this travesty, but one dude's story pretty much sums up the whole movement:

Chris Aubert, a Houston lawyer, felt only indifference in 1985 when a girlfriend told him she was pregnant and planned on an abortion. When she asked if he wanted to come to the clinic, he said he couldn't; he played softball on Saturdays. He stuck a check for $200 in her door and never talked to her again.

Aubert, 50, was equally untroubled when another girlfriend had an abortion in 1991. "It was a complete irrelevancy," he said. But years later, Aubert felt a rising sense of unease. He and his wife were cooing at an ultrasound of their first baby when it struck him -- "from the depths of my belly," he said -- that abortion was wrong.

Yep. It struck him that abortion was wrong. Not his total fucking indifference to the women he impregnated getting abortions, an appalling lack of empathy which any rational person would conclude had to have been indicative of a larger emotional detachment from women with whom he was intimate—that was cool. It was just the women getting the abortions that was the problem. And of course his near-sociopathic apathy toward them and their shared circumstance while pregnant with his spawn obviously had nothing to do with their getting abortions in the first place. Heavens, no. Everyone knows women long to have babies with emotionally unavailable wankstains who slip abortion money under the door.

Aubert has since converted to Catholicism. He and his wife have five children, and they sometimes protest in front of abortion clinics. Every now and then, though, Aubert wonders: What if his first girlfriend had not aborted? How would his life look different?

He might have endured a loveless marriage and, perhaps, a sad divorce. He might have been saddled with child support as he tried to build his legal practice. He might never have met his wife. Their children -- Christine, Kyle, Roch, Paul, Vance -- might not exist.

"I wouldn't have the blessings I have now," Aubert said. So in a way, he said, the two abortions may have cleared his path to future happiness.

"That's an intellectual debate I have with myself," he said. "I struggle with it."

But not so much that he doesn't picket outside abortion clinics to make (what he only now realizes is) a difficult decision for women getting abortions even more difficult. What a hero.

In the end, Aubert says his moral objection to abortion always wins. If he could go back in time, he would try to save the babies.

But would his long-ago girlfriends agree? Or might they also consider the abortions a choice that set them on a better path?

Aubert looks startled. "I never really thought about it for the woman," he says slowly.

Well there's a bloody shocker! I'm positively gob-smacked that he's never stopped to consider whether those abortions might have been a wise decision for the women who had them.

No—of course it would have been better if he'd "saved the babies," and brought into the world children of a father who cared so little for one mother that he played softball while she had an abortion. Not better for the mothers, and not better for the kids—but better for Aubert and his burdened conscience nearly 20 years later, and isn't that what really matters?

He has not talked with either of the ex-girlfriends, but he says he can imagine what they feel because he knows how the abortions affected him.

Right. And so they must be affected the same way—because however he feels, his ex-girlfriends must feel the same. It's inconceivable to this dipshit that they might have feelings independent of his. Good lord.

[Thanks to Shaker Poly for passing along the article link. Cara's got more.]

Digg!

Tagged as: reproductive justice, men's rights, pro-life, abortion

Melissa McEwan writes and edits the blog Shakespeare's Sister.


Bush White House Has Its Own Interrogation Room
Usman Khosa, a Pakistani U.S. college graduate, was messing with his ipod on 16th street and found out about the room the hard way.
Post by Satyam. August 8, 2008.
Obama Speaks the Truth to a Child, Right-Wingers Go Bananas
The Right-wing media is in a tizzy over Obama's truthful comment.
Post by Steve M.. August 8, 2008.
Will Pakistan Impeach Pervez Musharraf?
Political change is afoot in Pakistan, but what does it mean for the U.S. and the War in Afghanistan?
Post by Booman. August 8, 2008.

Comments Turn comments off sitewide Give us feedback »
Comments closed.
The comments for this story have been closed. Thank you to everyone who participated.
View:
Well...
Posted by: JoshuaLudd on Jan 8, 2008 11:52 AM   
Current rating: 4    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Being forced into having a child you don't want is traumatizing, too. The big difference is, of course... the only person being forced into anything is the woman and the only one who has their rights and their bodies violated is the woman.

Yes, it would be terrible for a woman to abort a child you wanted her to have... but nowhere near as terrible as forcing her to have the child and live with the consequences.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: Well... Posted by: vernize
» RE: Well... Posted by: lepidopteryx
Deal with it.
Posted by: g on Jan 8, 2008 12:15 PM   
Current rating: 4    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Biology is unfair to women. They are the ones getting stuck with pregnancy, delivery and their possible long-term health consequences. If they want to have the baby, then it's worth it, I guess. if they do not, no one, not ever, should feel entitled to tell them that they have to give up their body because of someone else's rights. When the discussion is about the rights of a fetus it is infuriating enough. When the discussion turns to the "rights" of allegedly grown men who feel traumatized because a woman dared throw out their "gift", then we are in an "Outer Limits" scenario.
I had an abortion years ago. The BF was only too happy to go along with the plan. Had he opposed it, I would have asked him: will you carry it? Will you deliver it? If not, shut up.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

wow
Posted by: struths on Jan 8, 2008 12:55 PM   
Current rating: 4    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
what a douschebag

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

This Guy Needs a Good Ass Ripping
Posted by: tommy1957 on Jan 8, 2008 1:47 PM   
Current rating: 4    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
I have known several woman in my life time who had chosen to get an abortion. Not a one of them ever stated that it was an enjoyable experience. But all of them said it was the right thing to do at the time based on their individual circumstances. No one - hear me NO ONE should have the right to determine what another person does with their free will and/or body. The so called antiabortionists are hypocritical liars who engage in deviant acts with minor children and homosexuality while claiming to espouse Christian values. They condemn welfare which in many cases is the only support poor post partum women have after some low man pregnanted them and left them with the burden of raising their child. A woman deserves and we must preserve their right to choose. And if you don’t like it; well screw you; it is none of your business anyway. I remember when this all started and it was the fetus that a living thing; now it is unfertilized eggs. Next they will say we need to protect the unborn that were just a thought. Get out of my face and stay out of my life and I will not kick your teeth out and stomp on your head. Fair enough!

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

BOO HOO
Posted by: VZEQICVA on Jan 8, 2008 1:50 PM   
Current rating: 4    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
C'mon guys, quit whining. Did someone make this up? ANNA

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: BOO HOO Posted by: Nebris
Kind of says it all, doesn't it?
Posted by: lepidopteryx on Jan 8, 2008 1:59 PM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
"Aubert looks startled. "I never really thought about it for the woman," he says slowly."

It's all about him.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Abortion, the most deadbeat parental act of all
Posted by: TonyGottlieb on Jan 8, 2008 2:07 PM   
Current rating: 1    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Often vilified for their failure to financially support the children they sire, men are finally beginning to recognize a blowback which is occurring from an infanticidal holocaust of 1.3 million lives annually. Since 1972 that 30+ million lives makes Hitler almost seem like a Red Cross nurse. No wonder there's so much hostility between men and women.

While we'll never eliminate abortion, (the most parentally deadbeat act of all), should the pregnant mother along with the father of a child they have conceived, choose to terminate the life of that child, eventually no one will have say otherwise. However, to eliminate the choice of the child's father as informed consent is abjectly unequal protection under the law. If we wish to maintain the woman's ultimate right to choose, law should change so that it must occur with the knowledge and consent of the child's father, or the abortion (along with the child's mother and putative father's name) need to be publicly registered.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

I'd love to have the ex-girlfriends come out of the woodwork
Posted by: SalB on Jan 8, 2008 5:19 PM   
Current rating: 4    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
And state that they are so glad they never gave birth to the child of such a jackass. I feel bad for his current wife and those five children.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Abortion
Posted by: RobNLA on Jan 8, 2008 10:33 PM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Right to life doesn't even live up to it's name.
They worry about an unborn baby, but then stop worrying about it once it's born. Who's gonna pay for the prenatal care, the hospital stay for the birth and after, care for the child after he or she is born, continued healthcare for the mother and child as well?

I don't see the religious right pushing for any of those issues. In fact, look at their poster boy Bush Jr. and how he vetoed raising funds allocated for SCHIP.

Women often get abortions because of financial reasons, so if the religious right actually did care about unborn lives, they would care about them after they were born as well.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Of, by and for women
Posted by: PJT on Jan 9, 2008 7:55 AM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
I have managed to infuriate many people with my view on abortion. It is that men (including myself) don't qualify to have an opinion about it. Period. Furthermore, I think the matter of abortion in the United States should be settled via a women-only referendum. That's right: let the women of the United States vote on what they think should be the law of the land regarding what happens to their own bodies.

Honestly, what man has a right to say anything on the subject? P J Tramdack (male- 59 years old?)

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: Of, by and for women Posted by: carcinoid112
» Yes!! Posted by: Nebris
Too little, too late
Posted by: carcinoid112 on Jan 9, 2008 8:33 AM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
If total swine like the Houston attorney are so concerned about what their sperm caused, they should have kept control of them at the time. I wonder if Mr. Lawyer ever told his lovely wife about the times he risked his life (not just an unwanted pregnancy, but his life--remember AIDS?) for a little 'unwrapped' fun? Naaahhh, after all, Boys will be Boys! (And jerks. Yep. They'll be self-centered jerks.)

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Unfortunately,
Posted by: hurricane hugo on Jan 9, 2008 10:21 AM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
this piece of shit was allowed to breed, further damaging the gene pool.

plur

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Society of Free Traders in Pennsylvania
Posted by: Chaos Inc. on Jan 9, 2008 10:56 AM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
If a woman is denied the right to an abortion because of the so called "Rights of the Un-born" then the instant the un-born is born; that individual becomes just another individual without rights.

The U.S. Constitution and Bill of Rights is only for those who are born and the un-born have No Rights.

Pro Choice is not Anti-Life it is pro-individual constitutional rights to freedom of conscious and the right to determine for one's self.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

So what's next?
Posted by: fixitt on Jan 9, 2008 2:14 PM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
What's next with these people? Murder trial for masterbating? Your religion is false if you judge others and don't do what you even say, yourself.

This 'belief by force' goes against constitutional law for the individual, and the government should not be involved whatsoever. This is where we find separation of church and state has been compromised the most.

Right?

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: So what's next? Posted by: peacefullaim
Abortion and the right of consent
Posted by: luzmejor on Jan 9, 2008 2:43 PM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
"law should change so that it must occur with the knowledge and consent of the child's father, or the abortion (along with the child's mother and putative father's name) need to be publicly registered."


I always knew that consent for pregnancy was important for both sexes, but here's a writer who wants privileges to consent kept all for himself! It seems he would also like the choice folks to be registered as sex offenders too. Thanks to the writer for revealing his actual motivation for animosity toward women who claim their right to an abortion!

If people seriously believed that a fetus is a human being in the same sense as an adult female is, they would also be asking for the right of the "child" to object to either or both parents' activities both before and after its birth. I'm thinking of the grievances a fetus might have (after birth) about being born deformed, with incurable disease, or even born into poverty.

They would also be picketing for the rights of adult citizens to require any other adult's organs and tissues to be used for what they perceive are their own health needs, and without that person's consent too! (I do mean both non-consenting males and females here)

The power to enslave and abuse other human beings seems never far from the minds of many of us. Those right-to-lie folks have really got it bad!

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]