Consider this: The man’s perspective on pregnancy topics

Reed Harris
Posted 5/24/24

My last article covered pregnancy rates and why new laws, in many states, have been enacted to control women and their pregnancies.  That article was written with women in mind. I promised, however, that I would write this next one with men in mind.  Now I keep that promise.

This item is available in full to subscribers.

Please log in to continue

Log in

Consider this: The man’s perspective on pregnancy topics


My last article covered pregnancy rates and why new laws, in many states, have been enacted to control women and their pregnancies.  That article was written with women in mind. I promised, however, that I would write this next one with men in mind.  Now I keep that promise.

I hope that the overturn of Roe vs. Wade was not due, in part, to some husbands, and other men, wanting to keep women at home and out of the work force.  I have talked with some men that are concerned with their wives being in the workplace and, sometimes, making more money.  This, I feel, is a very small number, though.  Most are okay with it, and some even stay home to perform the homemaker role.

The chauvinistic man, hopefully, is a thing of the past.  Yes, men have things they may do better than a woman, but it shouldn’t be ignored that women have things they do better than men.  We do see other countries feeling differently, wanting to keep men and women in “their place.”  When you think about this, and drill down to the basis for their beliefs, aren’t most of these beliefs based on religion?  So, if they are based on religion, then why is any government getting involved with that?  Just like it is up to us to decide what religion works best for us, isn’t it up to us to listen to our pastors, preachers, fellow churchgoers then determine what we believe?

I’ve said this before, and will probably say again, we are all on this planet together.  Whether we decide to join small groups of our fellow humans to get by is one thing.  But we are all together in the world and must help each other whenever, and wherever we can.  It is the only way I can see to produce a more meaningful, more fully-involved, and happier life while here.  We will always butt heads with smaller groups that would want to take over our lives, that don’t see the big picture. Thank God we can see through this and carry on.

So should the male species be as much involved as the females in his life and help to turn the tide on Roe vs. Wade, and the push on laws being changed in this country?  Those married could ask themselves if their wife were pregnant and their doctor said, “If your wife carries the baby to birth, she may lose her ability to have any additional children or may die, maybe along with your child.”, is this something they would want?  And if so, why?  If you say you wouldn’t care, then what alternative do you have in mind?

What burden is the government, federal or state, placing upon themselves and their citizens.  The government is already very poor at helping a child once it is born.  In previous articles, I have talked about some of our laws that proposed reducing or cutting aid to children and families.  Our public school system is deteriorating due, in part, to our money going to other non-public schools of many kinds.  Some of it due to the prior administration appointing a Secretary of Education that felt non-public schools were the future.  Does this help your child, our children?

What about the children born into poverty?  Without any help at all, what will their life be like?  Will the government have a change of heart and begin to care?  There is a very good chance of it, however, it is up to us to determine if that will be the future.  Most of these control issues on women, children, and education could be prevented with an open government that is not afraid to let us decide.  Which government do you think would be the one that would help?  Not just the one percent of us that really needs no help, but all of us?

How about women that are forced to carry babies to term but their husbands have left?  Or, forgive me for saying this, those who were raped?  Young or old, if they are forced to carry those children to birth, who will help them?  If too young to be on their own, do their parents care enough, or even have means enough, to help?  When a father leaves, how good is this government at making sure that the fathers help out?  How do they make a rapist help if, and when, he is caught?  He will be jailed, which he should be.  But will the government then step up to the plate for the child?

So when we talk about the need to carry babies to term, how do we look at preventing that requirement in the first place?  We are seeing laws being changed that would allow the ability of the mother to prevent babies up front.  Birth control is being shunned.  Drugs to take at the time of conception are being shunned.  What will the government say down the road to a woman wanting to have her tubes tied?  Will the government also prevent men from getting vasectomies?  Will condoms be taken off the shelves?  I still feel there is a very good chance of preventing all these things, however, again, it is up to us to determine that.

When it comes to freedoms we have, whether man or woman, we are at the edge of losing it all.  There is one political party that is very good at stalling, or even shutting down, the progress we have made and even any future progress.  For the last 16 years, at least, they have been making sure our progress is limited.  When asked they say the other side is the problem and they are the answer.  When this is done, it becomes very easy to try and manipulate a frustrated citizenship ready to tear their hair out.  This is a simple repeat of past governments trying to do the same.  It has worked before.  Will it work again?

No one party is perfect.  I don’t think we would want that.  Eutopia is not all it is cracked up to be.  But, in this day and age, we have seen a party that is all but insufficiently trying it’s best to change our culture at all costs.  Can we prevent our freedoms from being eliminated?