Standing up for Women

What a silly thing to have to do. Standing up for women. Male that I am, I find it difficult to understand why this is even necessary. Let me see:

• Women make up 50% of the global population; here in the USA, too
• America believes all people are created equal; that means women and men are equal with each other; it also means boys and girls are equal with one another
• We have freedom of speech guaranteed in our Constitution
• We have freedom of religion guaranteed in our Constitution, too
• Women make social and economic contributions of inestimable value; far too great a figure to imagine!
• I find women much easier to relate with than men! My being gay may have something to do with that, but still!
• Thinking prowess of women is every bit as logical as men; and as fruitful
• I have a mother, had two grandmothers, several aunts, a sister, sisters in law, mother in law, a wife for 26 years, a daughter, and two granddaughters. I want the same equality I have had to be available to them; I don’t want them treated as second class citizens; what a repugnant idea!

As a male I can do pretty much with my body what I want as long as I do not bring harm to another. The same should be the inalienable right of women. I know this involves birthing children. But that child is the product of two genders, two persons. The greater burden is on the woman to carry and deliver a healthy baby; she should have the preponderance of control over her body’s functioning in this matter. If she feels it unwise to carry the fetus to term, then that is her right to determine. Other people, institutions and legal process ought not to place control over the mother. It is her decision.

Somewhere along the way, reproductive rights have been sucked into a religious or theological construct. This has been done under the guise of determining when life begins. The logic apparently is that conception is the beginning of fetal life, and thus is protected under the law as a human being. However, there are many who hold the view that a fetus is not an independent life until it can sustain itself outside of the womb. Thus, a baby delivered prematurely, is a life if it can breathe on its own, accept food, and eliminate body waste on its own. We all know medical procedures can save a premature baby by artificial means, and that is acceptable to extend the range of the legal definition of life.  

Prior to self-sustaining status, however, the baby is not a life and abortion methods should be allowed. Any arguments to the contrary only confuse the issue. And the person wholly authorized to act on that decision is the mother herself. 

Should the mother desire medical assistance to sustain the life rather than an abortion, that is her decision. In that case abortion is avoided.

Make no mistake, I think abortion as a form of birth control is a hideous distortion of morality. Finding oneself with an unplanned and unwanted pregnancy, however, is still the hard choice to be made by the mother. It is not my decision to make or yours; it is hers; and decidedly not the government’s.

Separation of Church and State should guarantee the right of the mother to end a pregnancy. What a person does in agreement with her faith tradition and religious belief is separate from what society can require of her. Neither can the church force the choice on the mother. It can urge her but not require her to follow the church’s teaching. 

It seems to me that the rights of the woman with regard to abortion reside solely with her.

With this out of the way, what other women’s rights are under discussion? Any? Equal pay for equal work? Done; not perfect but now part of the law of the land. If reproductive rights are the hot issue, still, why is that? Church versus state. I thought we fought that battle long ago and put it to rest.

We should be done with the need to ‘stand up for women?’ In my book, they have the rights. They are hugely capable to handle them well. Leave them be.

March 27, 2012