IF MEN COULD GIVE BIRTH

By: Louis Cepeda A friend of mine thinks that if men could give birth, the ongoing debate over abortion would no longer be part of the American political landscape. He surmises that abortions would be rampant because most men would never allow anybody to tell them what to do with their bodies. I tend to agree with him. Most guys I know won't go and have their prostrate checked annually because of their fear of that probing finger. Tell a man that he's going to be sick, probed and poked in his most intimate body parts for nine months, and the majority of them would probably say, "No way!" Which brings me to the biggest problem I have with the anti-abortion movement. For the most part pro-life demonstrations are either led or highly attended by men. Men carrying signs that read "Baby Killers!" or "Murderers!" Men intimidating and yelling obscenities at women entering abortion clinics. Men refusing to rule out violence against abortion doctors. Men acting as if God had given them permission to choose for women what they wouldn't allow anybody to choose for them if they were in the same situation. In last years presidential election, the most controversial statements about abortion were made by men. Rep. Todd Akin, a Republican Senate candidate for Missouri, weighed in on his idea of what a rape victim should consider before having an abortion. If it's a legitimate rape, Akin said in a television interview. The female body has ways to try to shut that whole thing down." In Akins perverse way of thinking, a woman can prevent pregnancy if she is legitimately raped, whatever that means. Not long after Akin made a fool of himself, Indiana State Treasurer Richard Mourdock, the Republican candidate for his states Senate seat, went a step further. According to the Tea-Party backed Murdock, I came to realize life is that gift from God, and I think even when life begins in that horrible situation of rape, that it is

something that God intended to happen." In other words, if a brute beats you up and rapes you, go ahead and have his child. After all, the Good Lord meant it to be that way. Others like Republican candidate for vice-president, Paul Ryan, proposed legislation to ban abortions, including those involving rape and incest. Not surprisingly, Todd Akin supported the bill. Another congressman who agreed with Ryan and Akin was Rep. Joe Walsh (R-Ill). In addressing one of his constituents at a rally, Walsh said, "The common exceptions that people who are pro-life without exception are in cases of rape and incest -- horrific, evil, terrible events. In cases like that, I am still pro-life. There is still a life there." In recent years, this double standard of men deciding what's in the best interest of a woman's body reached all the way to the highest office in the land. During his eight years in office, President George Bush was on the record as being against a woman's right to choose. Vice President Dick Cheney also proclaimed his opposition to Roe vs. Wade. In fact, the majority of male Republicans in Congress and the Senate are against abortions. The sad part of it all is that these same guys show up on cable or regular television far too often, preaching about the sanctity of life and the right of the unborn. They quote the Bible, mention the Good Lord a lot, and even suggest that their prochoice opponents are less than moral people. The irony in all this religious posturing is the fact that the majority of these same guys go back to Washington D.C. or their state legislatures and vote against social programs that keep living children in a continuous cycle of poverty and violence. Their motto seems to be "We'll protect you until you're born." The bottom line is that abortion is not an easy topic to approach. Both sides have legitimate and earnest reasons for their beliefs. On the one hand, you have deeply religious people who believe that destroying a fetus at any stage of a pregnancy is equal to killing an adult. They want to defend the unborn at any price. On the other hand, in a

democracy like ours, should a religious belief system dictate what a woman should do with her own body? And if a woman is the one who faces all the dangers and consequences of the abortion process, shouldnt she be the one to make that difficult decision? Maybe what we need is a one-time national referendum on abortion with only women 18 years and older eligible to vote. They would also be asked to vote separately on other contentious elements of the issue, including late-term abortions and pregnancies caused by rape or incest. The results of the national referendum would be tallied, and the law would then be based on what the majority of American women want. Such a referendum, of course, wouldnt solve all the disagreements associated with the question of a woman's right to choose. And the losing side will probably still go on protesting. But at least the decision making would be in the right hands.