America, the nation founded not on ethnic origin, but the ideology of freedom, has lost its way. Not chiefly because freedoms are eroding, but because the line between personal responsibility and freedom has been pushed too far. We have become a nation that wants what it wants, without regard to its effect on others. Freedom has never been absolute, and it’s time that the lines be re-drawn.
I can think of no better example of this phenomenon than the almost universal perception that a woman has a right to choose to do whatever she wants with her own body. Yes, I agree she has the right to do whatever she wants with her own body. But a fetus is absolutely, without question, not a part of her own body. If it was, her egg could not be taken out of her own body, fertilized, and placed within another woman’s body to grow and develop. Yes, it is absolutely dependent on a woman’s body, but not the biological mothers’ body. The objection that a woman has a right to choose to abort her baby (note; not their baby, not the child of her and the father) also fails closer analysis. Isn’t it far more accurate to say that (excepting rape and incest, where a woman has had no choice in the matter), that choosing an abortion is a matter of desiring to be exempt, free from the consequence of a choice freely exercised, knowing that her choice risked pregnancy, but going forward anyway? And since it really does take two to tango, what about the fathers’ rights? If he wants to raise the child (a good argument can be made that raising a child for 18-20 years is more than equal to 9 months of pregnancy and even a difficult childbirth), what are his rights? If she wants to raise the child, he must (and should!) bear his responsibility for his actions. But if she wants to abort the child, she doesn’t have to bear the responsibility for her actions. 2000 years ago, a Roman man had absolute power over the life of his child. 21st century women seem to now want that same power.
There is actually a parallel between the issue of abortion and the question of environmental pollution. In the case of the latter, what is ethically required of every company or corporation is that they bear responsibility for all they produce….the good (the product), and the unwanted by-products (the pollutant(s) they are required to contain or re-process in some manner to render them not harmful to the land, the sea, the air, or any of its inhabitants). But many women don’t want to have to bear responsibility for the unwanted thing (child) they produce. While women were for so many years treated as second-class citizens (the last to get the right to vote), and still often are recipients of less pay for the same jobs as males, this is one area where the pendulum has swung too far. This is not about freedom of choice, but freedom from responsibility.
Of course, what is really desired is consequenceless sex. It’s what everybody seems to want, but again, what about personal responsibility? Years ago, when a young woman got pregnant out of wedlock, she was shipped away to ‘visit relatives’ to bear the child and quietly give it up for adoption. While these backward practices (really aiming to keep shame away from the parents) were certainly unjust and hypocritical, let me ask another question to see how ethical you really are. Wouldn’t you say that every child entering the world ought to have every opportunity to be healthy, happy, productive, fulfilled, and able to handle anything and everything the world throws at he or she? If so, having sex with any possibility of pregnancy, with anyone who isn’t kind, compassionate, mature, able, ready and willing to raise a child at that moment with you……isn’t that an act of profound irresponsibility? Shouldn’t every child (ideally) have both a good mother and father? (Father’s are considered optional today….maybe partially because so many men are so galactically irresponsible). Of course you will rightly say that even responsibly choosing a mate/sexual partner might still result in divorce or even abuse (I’m not sure one really knows the person till some time after the wedding day). True, but being responsible in the matter will only drastically increase the odds of a better life for the child.
Is it really progressive to lead society down a path of personal irresponsibility…to tell them they don’t have to be responsible for their actions, to go so far as to protect them from having to be responsible for their actions? Isn’t freedom from responsibility actually regressive? Isn’t freedom and responsibility the progressive way, since it looks after not just one’s own freedoms, but the ramifications of that freedom on everyone around them as well?