A very smart and politically active woman and the Con Man had the following email exchange after his “Con Games” show about abortion and The Quiet Majority:
I had a chance to listen to your show this am and agreed on most of your salient points regarding the silent majority. Don’t forget that the movie ‘Silkwood’ (about Kerr McGee) was also in that same time period and created a great deal of conspiracy around the evil nuclear energy consortium. I thought Tom Friedman summed it up well in his address this past summer at The Aspen Institute’s Great Ideas Festival when he said that ‘just going green’ doesn’t do us a hell of a lot of beans. The radical difference will be how we as a globe provide ‘some trillion gazillion energy number’ in some other form than fossil fuel…I can’t remember the number but I’m sure you can figure it out…nuclear energy does seem like the ‘cleanest’ and ‘greenest’ way to accomplish this goal.
But I could not disagree with you more on the liberal stance of abortion or pro-choice and your idea that ‘adoption’ could be the solution in order for there to be a meeting of the minds. Please don’t take this wrong, but it’s a typical male response. Until men are biologically capable of bringing a baby into this world, it really is about a women’s right over her own body. But in the spirit of being open-minded, if that were the answer and women would be subjugated to 9 months of pregnancy and to then give the child up for adoption, then it is only fair that the man who impregnated the woman should be castrated and not given the right to procreate ever again. How can you chattel one sex and not the other?
The Con Man replies:
We have a lot to talk about politically. Castration? Not for me thanks. Does a woman have the right to abort a 9-month-old baby still in the womb? Methinks not. Therefore the right to choose wanes at a certain point after the choice is made. Pick your trimester. The teeter-totter nature of what you suggest is also on display in the case of saving the mother’s life. Why shouldn’t we save the child instead of the mother? Why don’t they have the equal right to live? It seems those who are argue whole hog for the mother’s dominion throughout the pregnancy negate the existence of a second life at any point in the contiuum. Or a second opinion–i.e., the father’s.
I also believe the complete dismissal of the man’s role at any point after impregnation–like deciding what happens next–is blatant sexism. (Sorry.)
One other thing: adoption is not THE solution but A solution. To hear the young women at Yampa Mountain High School talk about rendered the pregancy as a mere inconvenience regardless of the trimester. Supply and demand: parents want to adopt. What’s so wrong about seeing the pregnancy through with proper support and without the stigma.
I guess I’m just not buying this notion of my body right or wrong.
Of course there is a time when termination is out of the question….that’s education, resources and support. But, until you can carry a pregnancy, hands off my body…sexist or not this is a woman’s issue (sorry)…but hey, that’s probably what the election will come down to….a woman or a black man. Sexist or racist?
You know I love ya….