Prop 1 Causes Societal Erosion

I have considered arguments for and against Proposition 1. I have two concerns that I have not seen addressed elsewhere.

My first concern is the walling off of women from the rest of society. For 60 years, we have told women that they have a lot of rights, but few responsibilities, that abortion is health care, as if only one human being is involved, and that certainly no man should have a say in the matter. This isolation of women from society is very harmful. Women's right now trump everything else, and criticism of women's health choices is off limits.

In the 1960s, this radical libertarian approach to feminism was encourage in a book called, "Our Bodies, Ourselves." Men have been told for decades that they have nothing to say about how men use their bodied, even though the source of the pleasure most women get is from men. When a third human being is created, women claim the right to destroy the newly created being, because it is only the woman's choice that matters. Men should have nothing to do with that choice, unless than man happens to be their doctor. This is a radical, dystopian, separatist, libertarian position that constitutes my first major concern. Society has gone along with isolating women under the theory that no one else can tell them what to do with their bodies, even though their bodies have produced a third human being with the help of a second human being. I think this is morally wrong.

This is not to say women should not have control over their health care and their bodies. As long as they keep it to themselves, I really don't think the rest of us should be involved except when they want the public to pay for it. If women want to jettison men from their lives completely, that is their choice. However, once they involve a man in their pleasure seeking activities that result in the creation of a third person, decisions about women's health care change. This approach cuts out the man figuratively; while the baby is cut out literally. This is an immoral and thus wrong approach.

A healthy society seeking clarity on such a nuance issue would not adopt a dystopian, separatist, libertarian approach to women's health. Women's health may start and end with women, as long as as they are lone. But if their activities result in pregnancy, the rest of us have rights and responsibilities to get involved in those decisions.

My second concern is the incentive in the law. Many crimes do not occur, because people do not want to suffer the penalty. There will always be a small percentage of people who don't think ahead about the penalties, or don't care, and we have systems to handle them. When we think of the law, and create the law, including Proposition 1, we have to look at the incentives that are put in place for affected parties.

Proposition 1 would bring back and enforce a regime where men don't matter. In that world, women can use men for their own pleasure, but if a pregnancy occurs, then the man's opinion is rendered irrelevant by the legalities found in Proposition 1. This creates a bad system of incentives.

Who wants a society where men are trained that they can bring pleasure to themselves and women, and then walk away? No child, no child support. No child, no responsibility. No child, no problem. This is the type of society that Proposition 1 encourages. We need to remember Donne, who could have said, "No woman is an island."

It is not healthy to legalize a society where women's rights trump men's and women's responsibilities. It is not healthy to enact a law which pretend men don't matter, when they surely do. Finally, the lief that is created must be seen as sacred. This face should inform those men and women that think they are only seeking pleasure, instead of triggering caretaking responsibilities for their actions and the live created. Vote NO on Proposition 1. Vote for a healthy society."

Written by A.M.