Replies

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.

Nowhere in your arguments did you explain where the government subsidies and social support structures exist for single fathers or divorced men. Men of low to middle incomes simply can't compete with the regular monthly paychecks and free daycare guaranteed to women who bear their children. Men of middle to high income can't compete with a Family Court system that guarantees a woman custody of the kids and monthly support checks if she becomes the least bit disgruntled in her marriage. Women know this. The feminist social agencies who flat out tell women that they "don't need a man" to survive know this. To point out that these subsidies exist solely to prop up a feminist industry and buttress political support of big "Daddy State" government is not to demonize single mothers. It's to demonize the Marxist feminist social welfare system and the scum liberals who use it to gain political power.
And I simply don't buy the argument that liberal social welfare policies encouraging single motherhood abate the proliferation of abortions. If that were true, we would have seen abortions decrease in number throughout the late 20th century rather than skyrocket.
The answer isn't to wag our fingers at men for whom there is no place in the family, or even at the selfish women who get abortions or take government handouts rather than make a home with a man. The answer is to shut down the thriving government social engineering juggernaut that has fed the abortion holocaust and the elimination of the husband and father from the family equation.

women and men 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 men who pro-create they are worth less than women who pro-create, the result will be abortion.

I added men to the first line, and switched the places of women and men in the second, just to illustrate that it needs to go both ways. Not in favor of guys over gals, or in favor of gals overguys, but both ways equally.

The term "single mother" is too often employed as meaning without-and-not-needing the father of the baby. Thus it's danger to fatherhood and thus to society.

At the risk of being complex, it should be noted that what the feminist idealogues want a full matriarchy, in which fathers have no rights whatever, and mothers automatically have sole custody and full control. Via the welfare state and the divorce courts, they are getting exactly that.

Abortion itself, to the ideological drivers of the feminist movement, is lesboedipal: an ideologically-lesbian version of the Oedipal Complex.

Abortion is patricide. As biological fatherhood is the ultimate realization of manhood, aborting a father's baby is the nuclear bomb in the war on fatherhood.

And the studies claiming that 85% of biological fathers participated in the abortion decision and favored it are false. Many such studies were done at abortion clinics, which for obvious reasons, massively taints the sample.

They are proferred as a pre-emptive salvo against their greatest danger: the prospect of men standing up for fatherhood en masse. Which will happen sooner rather than later, and is the best thing that ever could happen to this nation.

Further, they are profferred by pro-lifers who, as HB noted, don't want the killing of prenatal infants, but have an ingrained problem with attributing that killing to the only group legally empowered to make it happen.

So, they look around for a man to blame---the father of the baby, or the male abortionist.

Now, under the USSC decisions Danforth (76) and Casey (92), the father of the baby cannot legally save it. That he cannot is criminal beyond comprehension, and a horror unparalleled in human history.

Thus, until Roe/Danforth/Casey are overturned, only the mother of the baby can save it, and thus must accept responsibility when failing to do so. If she so fails, the blood is on her hands.

All that said, this social image of psuedoparthogenesis, referring to enobled single mothers as though they immaculately conceived, and demonizing unwed fathers even while marginalizing them, HAS to change. It's wrecking families, and society, in unprecedented ways.

Solutions?

An end to no-fault divorce

Covenant marriage laws

A judiciary-binding presumption of joint residential custody in all divorce and out of wedlock cases, rebuttable only when one parent is unfit.

An increase focus on positive images of fatherhood.

An end to dis-incentives for marriage: the "no man in the house" welfare rule, which Tommy Thompson and Wade Horn are working on, and an end to the marriage penalty, which President Bush wants

Couples counseling at Crisis Pregnancy Centers and Churches