I have heard numerous arguments from the mouths of men who believe that women should not have reproductive rights. Although this is indeed the opinion of another man, I do not present the same arguments that Alan Griffith and Jason Richwine did in the April 19 edition of The Eagle. I do not believe that the March for Women's Lives is a tool for "sexual 'liberation,'" nor is the legality of ending a pregnancy a matter for men to ultimately decide. When Richwine argues that the March for Women's Lives was a march to promote promiscuity and not a demonstration for "equal rights under the law for women," he is wrong on both points.
As social and cultural norms would confirm, men have long dominated decision-making, and it took a women's rights movement and decades of equal opportunity programming to give women the rights they deserve. Presently, men in power are eroding reproductive freedom, but men often overlook a critical reason that women need reproductive freedom.
Polls and statistics cannot adequately capture incidents of unwanted sexual interactions that women endure in their homes, at parties, in dorms, workplaces and private functions. One inherent tragedy that is often overlooked in the abortion debate is that men take away a woman's liberty to exercise her reproductive freedoms. Many women are compelled to make these personal decisions because their boyfriend or husband pushed intercourse or compromised their ability to have protected sex.
Women did not march because they are "pro-abortion." No one likes abortions, and everyone can agree on the innocence of an unborn child. But the erosion of reproductive freedom will not address the root causes of many abortions. Male sexual aggression is not a laughing matter, and it can be linked to more unwanted pregnancies than most men would care to acknowledge. If men took an honest stand and owned up to the realities of sexual aggression, then men would understand in absolute terms the reason why reproductive freedom in this country is essential.
Griffith asked whether government can endorse what some in society believe is an immoral practice. If our system of administering justice was equally managed by women and men, and women were fairly represented in Congress, in the Courts and in law enforcement, then a decision could be made by our legal system about abortion that would reflect the needs of women in our country. However, until women are equal in power, the voices of the women who marched in the March for Women's Lives will prevail, and the need for our government to remain neutral on reproductive freedom cannot be fairly compromised. Indeed, the March for Women's Lives was a march to promote equal rights under the law for women.
I know that some women in our country are willing to let the courts and Congress make personal decisions for them. Arguments against reproductive freedom weigh heavy in these decisions; some women decide not to exercise their rights. But ultimately, women who do exercise their reproductive freedom have made personal decisions that should not be hindered by a government that does not fairly represent women's needs.
