[Harrison Bergeron]

I'm guessing that the author is a twenty-something fresh out of a university, her brain freshly washed. Making heroes of people for simply doing the right thing says that good morals have become optional. I would argue that single mothers - not married women - are the true "incubators for the state." What other assumption can we make when they and their babies - via massive income and childcare subsidies - become virtual wards of the state? Married working mothers fit into the same boat, for it would be unprofitable for them to abandon their babies if the government didn't credit their tax bill for the cost of child care and exempt them from the marriage tax penalty (with which families with stay-at-home moms are still saddled). The government is actively and consciously working to replace the family as the anchor in people's lives. This can only be accomplished by ensuring that the institution of fatherhood is abolished.

The author is desperate to fit into the world of her liberal "pro-choice" friends without compromising her belief that abortion is murder. She wants to make abortion about bad relationships and the whims of selfish men freed from the bonds of fatherhood. In other words, she wants to be a feminist without getting the blood of murdered babies on her hands. I ain't buying it. She seems to have bought the lie that abortion would become anathema if not for men behaving badly.

I'm not in a kind mood, so I won't praise a pro-life article when its aim is to assuage the guilt of women who kill their babies in the womb. I won't comment favorably on a an article that laments the demise of fatherhood while praising single mothers.

The author needs to grow up and come down from the fence. She's either pro-life and pro-family, or she's not. The middle ground is the most fertile for the pro-choice crowd. The screaming radical feminists who praise abortion as a sacrament aren't running around the ones getting themselves knocked up, it's the one's in the middle, the one's looking for guidance, the one's who were never told that the other half of their choice is to love their baby and love their baby's father.

Love is the true choice.

[Lorianne]

I would argue that single mothers - not married women - are the true "incubators for the state." What other assumption can we make when they and their babies - via massive income and childcare subsidies - become virtual wards of the state?

This attitude is one-sided demonizing unmarried "single mothers" without mentioning the other component, unmarried "single fathers". Why are we so busy one-sided demonizing single mothers. These are the women who DID NOT abort! We need to be clear about the options here. The options to abortion are:

1. Men and women should prevent co-creating children they cannot both support and sustain.
2. Failing that men and women should step up to the plate and be accountable for the child they co-created and do the best they can. When people make mistakes we should help them to not compound that mistake with abortion. One-sided demonizing of women, especially those who do make the better choice and don't abort, doesn't do this.

If we demonize "single mothers" we are aiding and abetting abortion. We are actually PROMOTING abortion!

Married working mothers fit into the same boat, for it would be unprofitable for them to abandon their babies if the government didn't credit their tax bill for the cost of child care and exempt them from the marriage tax penalty (with which families with stay-at-home moms are still saddled).

I agree tax policies should be revised so as not to penalize one-income families. However, I don't agree with demonizing working mothers in two income families. This attitude actually works to PROMOTE abortion.

Let's keep our eye on the ball. The goal is to reduce/eliminate abortion. Demononizing the women who DON'T ABORT is counterproductive to this goal.

She wants to make abortion about bad relationships and the whims of selfish men freed from the bonds of fatherhood. In other words, she wants to be a feminist without getting the blood of murdered babies on her hands.

I didn't get that from her article. However, I do believe many pro-Life men wish to wash the blood of abortion completely off men's hands. This is completely wrong. Men ARE involved in abortion and ARE complicit in abortion. Studies have shown that 85% of men are actively involved in the decision to abort. In addition it is reasonable to conclude that men influence the decision to abort or not abort by making their intentions toward the child known. Men are an intergral part of the decision making process in abortion and in the state of families. Making it out to be one-sided doesn't cut it.

In addition, Roe v. Wade could never have become law and could not remain the law of the land without the active participation of men.

In addition we have set up our social/political/economic systems so that when two people co-conceive, only one of them will be "punished" by society after the child is born (in addition to punishing the child). This inequity between men and women who pro-create must be adressed for abortion to be reduced. The practical effect of inequity in pro-creation is increased abortion.

Love is the true choice.

I agree. But love is not one sided. We must love women enough to say to them: "If you co-conceive you will not be treated unequally and unfairly relative to the other co-conceivor." On the other hand, if we tell women who pro-create they are worth less than men who pro-create, the result will be abortion.