“Men Should Be Allowed to Veto Abortions” announced Dr. Keith Ablow, psychiatrist and chief resident psycho-babbler on the Fox News Channel Medical A-Team.
In Part 1 of “What Dr Keith Ablow Doesn’t Understand about Liberty,” I explained how he was excoriating the life and mission of recently deceased fellow physician, Dr. Jack Kevorkian, because of Kevorkian’s courageous stand on the liberty issue of physician assisted suicide for terminally ill patients.
Dr. Ablow has religious objections to that form of liberty so he reviled and ridiculed Dr. Kevorkian, refusing even to acknowledge his qualifications as a physician.
Now Dr. Ablow believes that men should be allowed by law to force women to bear their children. If the father is willing to take full custody upon delivery, he declares, “the pregnant woman involved should not have the option to abort and should be civilly liable, and possibly criminally liable, for psychological suffering and wrongful death should she proceed to do so.”
Religion always trumps liberty in the minds of believers, even the so-called scientists among them. Dr. Ablow evinces no exception to this rule as he fervently believes: “It’s time to give men their due as fathers—from the moment of conception. Allow men who want to be fathers, and who could be good parents, to compel the women they impregnate to bring their children to term.”
What Dr. Ablow just doesn’t understand – again – about liberty, is that you own your body; and as a fundamental principle of personal liberty, you own the inalienable right to direct the course of it, and your life, as you choose. That is the nature of liberty. That’s what individual liberty is. It’s such a simple concept, yet so hard for some intelligent people to understand, much less to tolerate.
If you are a woman, you own yourself, your body, your eggs, your uterus, and the liberty right to reproduce with it or not as you desire. If you are a man, you own yourself, your body, your sperm, and the liberty right to keep it or give it away; but once you deposit it inside a woman’s body, that’s it; you have given it away; it belongs to her, and you cannot, by reliance upon any liberty right, have it back. Now it’s all up to her – naturally, and that is as it should be. It’s a female prerogative.
Of course, I sympathize with the occasional man who suffers emotional discomfort when the object of his affection aborts his potential offspring for this reason or that without his assent, but his feelings can never, under any circumstances, justify forcing a woman to bear his child.
Parents can force each other by law to financially support their children, but neither can force the other to visit, or love, or bond with them. It’s simply a matter of personal liberty. Too bad and so sad sometimes, but without it we are nothing more than slaves.
A man can legally contract with a woman to bear his child, but should she choose to breach that contract, his remedy at law would be strictly limited to money damages only; he would have to prove a financial loss or be satisfied with whatever liquidated amount of damages was specified in the contract.
But Dr. Ablow, all things considered in his religiously oriented mind, believes that the mere deposit of his sperm in a woman’s uterus should allow a man to gain control over the life and liberty of another human being:
“I understand that adopting social policy that gives fathers the right to veto abortions would lead to presently unknown psychological consequences for women forced to carry babies to term,” he casually admits. “But I don’t know that those consequences are greater than those suffered by men forced to end the lives of their unborn children.”
Well, I for one do know, Dr. Ablow; and lovers of liberty everywhere know.
It’s a no-brainer for us.