Free Republic
Browse · Search
General/Chat
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

To end abortion, fix sexuality: George Mason professor
lsn ^ | Ben Johnson

Posted on 02/01/2013 5:16:16 PM PST by Morgana

WASHINGTON, D.C., February 1, 2013, (LifeSiteNews.com) – Before abortion will ever come to an end, people must have a more accurate understanding of healthy sexuality, according to a leader in the pro-life movement.

“Instead of reminding people what they are doing when they have an abortion, we need to have have people think about what they are doing when they are having sex,” Helen Alvaré, a law professor at George Mason University, said as a featured panelist at the National Press Club during a symposium held by Americans United for Life last Thursday. Helen Alvaré. Helen Alvaré.

The pro-life movement is appropriately squeezing the “supply-side of abortion” through legislation focusing on ultrasounds and informed consent, as well as an expanding network of crisis pregnancy centers, said Alvare.

But what is being overlooked is “the demand-side of abortion” – the hook-up culture that often leads to unintended pregnancies too often aborted.

“Young women talking about what it's like out there in the market for sex, marriage, and mating will tell you they are not happy” with what Alvaré calls “the Unbearable Lightness of Sex.”

Planned Parenthood's murky view of sex – that it is a pitfall that can potentially lead to unwanted children whose existence will dash women's dreams forever – has distorted the procreative function and “taken all the fun out of sex.”

“We need to reconnect” physical intimacy with having children in people's minds, so they know that what they're doing "has meaning,” she said. “We need to reform our marriage laws as to entrance and exit – so we put marriage and children together.”

Statistics suggest solving marriage will, to a large extent, solve the abortion crisis. Some 85 percent of women who seek abortion are unmarried. Infidelity causes some married women to abort.

The present environment of strings-free sex benefits men, who feel no sense of responsibility toward the mother or child, and leaves isolated women alone to deal with single parenthood or the lingering guilt brought on through abortion, said Alvare.

“I think women would like to get married a little younger and have their children a little younger – so sue me,” she quipped.

A series of polls and a growing body of women's literature would back her up. Women are increasingly skittish about marrying late after a generation that is dealing with the reality of plunging fertility, which begins in the late 30s.

Researchers at the University of California-San Francisco recently found “that women did not have a clear understanding of the age at which fertility begins to decline," as they wrote after a recent poll, which they publicized in Human Reproduction.

Women in such liberal publications as Slate and The New Republic – both decidedly outside the pro-life camp – have noted the disappointment of women who learned too late the error of the feminist slogan, “you can have it all.”

Men, too, must man up to their responsibilities as fathers. “Of couse, we have to defeat the porn industry alongside that,” said Alvaré.

The daunting task of restoring a sense of healthy sexuality is all the more necessary because of the sexual revolution. There has been a massive increase in non-marital sex, illegitimacy, and abortions "since the widespread introduction of contraception, and there is no reason to believe this is going to end,” she said.

Such data convinced author Mary Eberstadt to write in her book Adam and Eve After the Pill that Pope Paul VI's encyclical Humanae Vitae, which reiterated Catholic Church teaching against contraception, has been vindicated. In Humanae Vitae the pope had predicted an increase in abortions, as well as infidelity, the devaluing of women and a general lowering of moral standards, as a result of the embrace of contraception.

“If you were to ask which document of modern times was the most unwanted and reviled document it would have be Humanae Vitae,” Eberstadt told LifeSiteNews.com last year. “Yet this document contains more truth about the sexual revolution and the world it would usher in than any other document.”

While full conformity with the view of the Catholic Church on contraception is likely too far to go in one step, beginning a national discussion about the real meaning, and consequences, of sex plays an irreplaceable role in changing a culture that countenances a million abortions a year.

“This is a revolution I'm talking about, but a revolution is needed,” Alvaré said. “I think a lot of women are ready for it.”


TOPICS: Health/Medicine
KEYWORDS: abortion; gmu; moralabsolutes; prolife; sex; sexuality

1 posted on 02/01/2013 5:16:20 PM PST by Morgana
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: Morgana

also, none of this will get better either until you get rid of no-fault divorces. the left has treated every aspect’of men-women relationshps so cavalierly and so imdifferently and that’s been the entire mindset that’s caused the problems all across the board.


2 posted on 02/01/2013 5:21:33 PM PST by Secret Agent Man (I can neither confirm or deny that; even if I could, I couldn't - it's classified.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Morgana
After a couple of decades of Planned Parenthood produced sex ed and the only things women know about are how to put a condom on a banana, what type of sex is "safe sex," and when to make their way to an abortion clinic if they think they are pregnant.

Boy, we sure ain't getting our money's worth, are we?

3 posted on 02/01/2013 5:32:57 PM PST by Slyfox (The key to Marxism is medicine - Vladimir Lenin)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: AdmSmith; AnonymousConservative; Berosus; bigheadfred; Bockscar; ColdOne; Convert from ECUSA; ...

Thanks Morgana.
"Instead of reminding people what they are doing when they have an abortion, we need to have have people think about what they are doing when they are having sex," Helen Alvaré, a law professor at George Mason University, said as a featured panelist at the National Press Club during a symposium held by Americans United for Life last Thursday. The pro-life movement is appropriately squeezing the "supply-side of abortion" through legislation focusing on ultrasounds and informed consent, as well as an expanding network of crisis pregnancy centers... what is being overlooked is "the demand-side of abortion" -- the hook-up culture that often leads to unintended pregnancies... "Young women talking about what it's like out there in the market for sex, marriage, and mating will tell you they are not happy" with what Alvaré calls "the Unbearable Lightness of Sex."

4 posted on 02/01/2013 6:16:45 PM PST by SunkenCiv (Romney would have been worse, if you're a dumb ass.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: Morgana

Nothing will change until both pro-life and pro-choice women take responsibility for propagating abortion through their “victim” attitude.

If men could opt out of forced paternity, like women can, the age of rampant permissive sex would be over.


5 posted on 02/01/2013 6:21:39 PM PST by papertyger
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Morgana

Why not inform women that their right to choose exists well before intercourse.


6 posted on 02/01/2013 6:50:17 PM PST by Baynative (I'm reading a book about anti-gravity. I can't put it down.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Morgana

Wow! This woman is spot on!


7 posted on 02/01/2013 7:08:06 PM PST by Bigg Red (Restore us, O God of hosts; let your face shine, that we may be saved! -Ps80)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: papertyger

What does that mean?


8 posted on 02/01/2013 7:42:14 PM PST by Bainbridge
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: papertyger

What does that mean?


9 posted on 02/01/2013 7:42:17 PM PST by Bainbridge
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: Bainbridge

Seems like a fairly concise statement to me.

What part are you having trouble understanding?


10 posted on 02/01/2013 8:53:58 PM PST by papertyger
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 9 | View Replies]

To: Morgana
A series of polls and a growing body of women's literature would back her up. Women are increasingly skittish about marrying late after a generation that is dealing with the reality of plunging fertility, which begins in the late 30s.

My wife worked in Stanford's infertility clinic for a number of years. The statement above is an understatement.

To quote myself:

"Education" as Social Cataclysm

It hard not to note the 50% unemployment among recent college graduates or how many are staying in college seeking multiple bachelor’s and advanced degrees just to get a decent “middle class job.” So imagine a young woman under the existing system attaining that goal. She would be at least 25-27 years of age. Now she gets a job, meets a guy, they court, get married, get settled, and she’s… 32? 35???

I hate to tell you how many women fitting that description are showing up at infertility clinics desperate to have a baby (my wife worked in one), not to mention having a much higher proportion of babies burdened with lifetime learning disabilities such as Down's Syndrome (she works in the Newborn Intensive Care unit now). Effectively, our educational system is structured to preclude the middle class from replacing itself.

As this demographic trend continues, as the demands of what constitutes an education grow, and as machines replace even professional positions, the only people having kids even approaching their full potential will be the very well-to-do, with the very poor having little prospect of a competitive education at all. History teaches that this arrangement leads inevitiably to social cataclysm, representing not just the death of a culture but a nation.

Worse, were it even possible to "fix" said existing system, we would have to wait between 15-20 years for the benefits to even begin to be realized. Needless to say given our parlous finances, disaster will have preclueded even the possibility of that "eventual" marginal improvement.

Hence, simple reproductive biology teaches that this problem of "eductation" MUST be dissolved as a matter of life and death, NOW. The matter is too urgent to be left to succeeding generations, while improving the existing system won't cut it. - Source

Hence the leftist focus upon advanced education for women: it is a key part of their demographic war against middle America.
11 posted on 02/01/2013 9:03:55 PM PST by Carry_Okie (Islam offers us choices: convert or kill, submit or die.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: papertyger; Bainbridge

I’m not sure what Bainbridge is having trouble understanding. I’m having trouble understanding how you see us pro-life women as having a victim attitude.


12 posted on 02/01/2013 9:46:01 PM PST by ottbmare (The OTTB Mare)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 10 | View Replies]

To: papertyger; Bainbridge
Nothing will change until both pro-life and pro-choice women take responsibility for propagating abortion through their “victim” attitude.

If men could opt out of forced paternity, like women can, the age of rampant permissive sex would be over.


As concise as a melting ice cube.
I think I get the second sentence. Women can opt out by abortion. The first sentence gets more confusing the more you read it.
13 posted on 02/01/2013 9:46:01 PM PST by bramps (Sarah Palin got more votes in 2008 than Mitt Romney got in 2012)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 10 | View Replies]

To: ottbmare
I’m having trouble understanding how you see us pro-life women as having a victim attitude.

It has been my experience from many years here on FreeRepublic, that given a choice between saving babies and losing their monopoly on evading parenthood, even pro-life women will sacrifice the baby...every time.

14 posted on 02/01/2013 9:55:01 PM PST by papertyger
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 12 | View Replies]

To: bramps
The first sentence gets more confusing the more you read it.

Yeah, you're right. Sorry. I've been involved with this idea for so long it has become ingrained with me.

Please see above post.

15 posted on 02/01/2013 9:58:49 PM PST by papertyger
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 13 | View Replies]

To: bramps

Excuse me. I should have said “given a choice between saving babies, and providing for women who ‘make a mistake,’ ....”


16 posted on 02/01/2013 10:14:13 PM PST by papertyger
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 13 | View Replies]

To: papertyger
So you believe that we who work, donate, pray, and counsel to keep babies from being killed, those who adopt unwanted babies and those who just contribute funds, we sacrifice babies? You think we're evading parenthood, when most of us have as many children as God will give us? And it's your time spent reading articles and writing to strangers on an online forum that makes you think this? What in the hell are you talking about?

Get out from behind your keyboard and go stand with me on an icy morning in front of an abortion clinic. Help me counsel a woman who is seven months pregnant and peparing for a late-term abortion. Help me assemble a crib for a mother who was talked out of killing her child. Then tell me that we're prepared to sacrifice babies in order to avoid parenthood.

17 posted on 02/01/2013 10:30:50 PM PST by ottbmare (The OTTB Mare)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 14 | View Replies]

To: ottbmare

And how has ANY of those things gotten us one step closer to ending abortion?

Clearly the paradigm being pursued by pro-life women has failed, but they refuse to change it for fear of losing “the bird in the hand.”

As for your challenge, I’ve done many of them already, but I’m not vain enough to think preserving a few individual grains of sand offsets the fact the beach is being washed away right out from under me.


18 posted on 02/01/2013 10:45:15 PM PST by papertyger
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 17 | View Replies]

To: Morgana

bfl


19 posted on 02/01/2013 10:49:42 PM PST by PLMerite (Shut the Beyotch Down! Burn, baby, burn!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: bramps

I think this person has an “issue” with the fair sex. If both pro life and pro abort are blameworthy that includes pretty much all women.


20 posted on 02/02/2013 6:35:07 AM PST by Bainbridge
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 13 | View Replies]

To: ottbmare

I am not going to bother trying to decipher that person’s posts . The original and subsequent are too muddled, both logically and grammatically.


21 posted on 02/02/2013 6:39:26 AM PST by Bainbridge
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 17 | View Replies]

To: papertyger
And how has ANY of those things gotten us one step closer to ending abortion?

That's a classic liberal debating tactic: changing the subject. We were not discussing the efficacy of pro-life women, but their ethics. You said we would "sacrifice the baby" rather than give up a monopoly on evading parenthood, every time. I've tried to give you a chance to explain what you mean so that everyone on Free Republic doesn't draw the conclusion that you really believe that for political reasons we pro-life women are deliberately letting children die. So far you have failed to clarify this absolutely filthy accusation. Would you like to try again, with specific and clear examples?

I would also dispute that our efforts have had no effect. More and more Americans are coming to realize that abortion is wrong, that it kills a living person. But since you don't like the results of our efforts to write, speak, counsel, lobby, show sonograms, give hands-on help, and adopt, what would you propose? What are your no doubt wonderful solutions to the problem?

22 posted on 02/02/2013 9:57:11 AM PST by ottbmare (The OTTB Mare)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 18 | View Replies]

To: ottbmare
That's a classic liberal debating tactic: changing the subject.

It's not changing the subject: it's demonstrating all these things you take such great pride in are for your own edification, not furthering the ostensible "cause."

We were not discussing the efficacy of pro-life women, but their ethics.

Oh really? How many years of unbroken failure does it take before one may safely deduce "another agenda?"

Oh sure, pro-life women would like abortion to go away, but only so long as "emotional soup-kitchens," are the only means. Binding themselves to a real sacrifice of their choices isn't even though of, let alone discussed.

I would also dispute that our efforts have had no effect.

You wanted to discuss liberal debate tactics? "No effect" is an absurd claim, and one I never made. So answer my charge, not what you wish I had charged.

Abortion is now buried on this culture like a tick. Saving a handful of babies through soup-kitchen tactics does nothing in the big picture but make the "savior" feel better about themselves.

More and more Americans are coming to realize that abortion is wrong, that it kills a living person.

And polls have shown those same people believe they should still have a right to abortion, anyway.

So much for changing hearts.....

What are your no doubt wonderful solutions to the problem?

Easy, fight fire with fire. Use the pro-choice argument against the pro-choice lobby.

Give the same "choice" to men.

23 posted on 02/02/2013 5:28:33 PM PST by papertyger
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 22 | View Replies]

To: Bainbridge

These statements puzzle me too. Here’s my stab at deciphering them.

The first seems to accuse all women (whether pro-life, pro-choice, or undecided) of having a victim attitude. Since this discussion is on abortion, my guess is it is referring to the belief (which I would call a fact, but then I’m one of the accused) that only women go through labor/delivery, which can be painful, dangerous, & even fatal. So the solution would be for women to begin to believe that men can also go through labor/delivery, &/or that it is never painful, dangerous, or fatal.

The second seems to advocate men being able to force the mothers of their unborn children to have abortions if they do not want to be fathers. Men are already able to have vasectomy operations, so this was the only thing I could come up with.

Looking forward to being corrected because I am genuinely curious where this is going & these are not solutions I have ever heard of.


24 posted on 02/02/2013 7:57:55 PM PST by TropicanaRose
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]

To: TropicanaRose

He’s vindictive and irrational. There is no logic here. Don’t waste time trying to figure out the thought processes of someone who is so devoid of reason that he has figured a way to insult and objectify all women, on both sides of the abortion battle.


25 posted on 02/02/2013 10:34:57 PM PST by ottbmare (The OTTB Mare)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 24 | View Replies]

To: Morgana; RIghtwardHo; Reaganite Republican; Clintons Are White Trash; HerrBlucher; mgist; ...
+

Freep-mail me to get on or off my pro-life and Catholic List:

Add me / Remove me

Please ping me to note-worthy Pro-Life or Catholic threads, or other threads of general interest.

26 posted on 02/02/2013 10:55:58 PM PST by narses
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: ottbmare

If you want to see “vindictive and irrational,” watch the female reaction to the concept of “paper abortions.”


27 posted on 02/02/2013 11:07:11 PM PST by papertyger
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 25 | View Replies]

To: Morgana
The pro-life movement is appropriately squeezing the “supply-side of abortion” through legislation focusing on ultrasounds and informed consent, as well as an expanding network of crisis pregnancy centers, said Alvare.

But what is being overlooked is “the demand-side of abortion” – the hook-up culture that often leads to unintended pregnancies too often aborted.

“Young women talking about what it's like out there in the market for sex, marriage, and mating will tell you they are not happy” with what Alvaré calls “the Unbearable Lightness of Sex.”

Planned Parenthood's murky view of sex – that it is a pitfall that can potentially lead to unwanted children whose existence will dash women's dreams forever – has distorted the procreative function and “taken all the fun out of sex.”

“We need to reconnect” physical intimacy with having children in people's minds, so they know that what they're doing "has meaning,” she said. “We need to reform our marriage laws as to entrance and exit – so we put marriage and children together.”

Statistics suggest solving marriage will, to a large extent, solve the abortion crisis. Some 85 percent of women who seek abortion are unmarried. Infidelity causes some married women to abort.

The present environment of strings-free sex benefits men, who feel no sense of responsibility toward the mother or child, and leaves isolated women alone to deal with single parenthood or the lingering guilt brought on through abortion, said Alvare.

“I think women would like to get married a little younger and have their children a little younger – so sue me,” she quipped.

Excellent. More power to her.

This afternoon I was walking through a local shopping center and happened upon a Planned Parenthood clinic. I hadn't known until then that there was one there. I walked up to the door and noticed the dimmed lights and the frosted windows. It was trying hard to look sterile and inconspicuous.

My attention was diverted by a group of teenage boys moving past on their skateboards.

As I watched them go by, I wondered about what they had been taught in school about sex education, sexuality, and reproduction. Might some woman in their lives end up knocking on the doors of that dim little office with the frosted glass windows?

The connection between sex and reproduction needs to be firmly reestablished in the minds of men as well as women. Sex leads to new life, and that life must be valued, as those who give that life must be valued.

28 posted on 02/02/2013 11:25:36 PM PST by thecodont
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: TropicanaRose
Men are already able to have vasectomy operations, so this was the only thing I could come up with.

And women can get their tubes tied.... That solves nothing.

No, the idea is to embrace the whole "choice" mentality, arguments the pro choice crowd could hardly deny, but recognize it is fundamentally unjust to allow women their entire gestation period to decide whether or not to give birth, then cavalierly expect men to make that decision before there's even a pregnancy. Furthermore, it is unjust to require men to be financially obligated solely based on the decision she makes.

The answer is the "paper abortion" whereby a potential father could legally sign away all rights and responsibilities for the as yet unborn child.

If pro life women would get behind such an idea it would immediately garner the support of all the pro choice men, divide the pro choice camp, and ultimately lead to a return to a close approximation of the societal dynamic that made women protect their own chastity from the dawn of mankind.

29 posted on 02/02/2013 11:34:24 PM PST by papertyger
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 24 | View Replies]

To: papertyger

“Paper abortions” will keep the “hookup culture” intact.


30 posted on 02/02/2013 11:37:12 PM PST by thecodont
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 29 | View Replies]

To: thecodont
“Paper abortions” will keep the “hookup culture” intact.

No more so than it was prior to easy abortion access.

The sad truth is "abortion" is a women's sin, and only women can stop it, but not without a return to the old socio-sexual dynamic.

This is why I hold pro life women in as much contempt as pro choice. They would sooner gouge your eyes out than give up their "parachute" of "male obligation." Meanwhile, they allow millions of abortions, and assuage their consciences for our debased society by advocating ever more "emotional soup kitchens" for the problem pregnancies all around us.

31 posted on 02/02/2013 11:55:46 PM PST by papertyger
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 30 | View Replies]

To: papertyger
No more so than it was prior to easy abortion access.

I think we need to take a step back, before Roe v. Wade in 1973, back to when oral contraceptives were made widely available, first to married women and then to unmarried women. The whole "contraceptive culture" in the early 1960s helped facilitate the "hookup culture" -- easy abortion access in 1973 just sped it along.

The sad truth is "abortion" is a women's sin, and only women can stop it, but not without a return to the old socio-sexual dynamic.

Why not return the old socio-sexual dynamic, which encouraged marriage and early childbearing in marriage?

They would sooner gouge your eyes out than give up their "parachute" of "male obligation."

I think some of these women might have been given a false choice: if they hadn't been pushed out of the airplane, they wouldn't have needed that "parachute" to begin with. Maybe all they really wanted was a safe trip from gate to gate.

32 posted on 02/03/2013 12:24:33 AM PST by thecodont
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 31 | View Replies]

To: papertyger

9 Then the Lord God called to Adam and said to him, “Where are you?”

10 So he said, “I heard Your voice in the garden, and I was afraid because I was naked; and I hid myself.”

11 And He said, “Who told you that you were naked? Have you eaten from the tree of which I commanded you that you should not eat?”

12 Then the man said, l“The woman whom You gave to be with me, she gave me of the tree, and I ate.”


33 posted on 02/03/2013 1:30:20 AM PST by AliVeritas (Pray.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 31 | View Replies]

To: thecodont
The whole "contraceptive culture" in the early 1960s helped facilitate the "hookup culture" -- easy abortion access in 1973 just sped it along.

The bright line of distinction between contraception and abortion is universally recognized, save for Catholics. Conflating the two is a favorite tactic of the left because it works for their purposes.

Why not return the old socio- sexual dynamic, which encouraged marriage and early childbearing in marriage?

Because that model has already been rejected by society-at-large. "Going back" has never been an option. We can only attempt to institute a countervailing innovation that *inadvertently* provides a close approximation.

Maybe all they really wanted was a safe trip from gate to gate.

Precisely, excepting the fact that no one pushed them out of the airplane: they jumped.

The "wanting to be safe" is what keeps them from making the bold move that would short-circuit the practical effects of pro-choice ideology and tactics.

34 posted on 02/03/2013 1:31:45 AM PST by papertyger
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 32 | View Replies]

To: papertyger
The bright line of distinction between contraception and abortion is universally recognized, save for Catholics. Conflating the two is a favorite tactic of the left because it works for their purposes.

Please explain.

The "wanting to be safe" is what keeps them from making the bold move that would short-circuit the practical effects of pro-choice ideology and tactics.

Every woman wants to be safe. And the boldest move of all for a woman would be for her to outright refuse sex outside of a married relationship.

35 posted on 02/03/2013 1:38:07 AM PST by thecodont
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 34 | View Replies]

To: AliVeritas

16Unto the woman he said, I will greatly multiply thy sorrow and thy conception; in sorrow thou shalt bring forth children; and thy desire shall be to thy husband, and he shall rule over thee.

cf.

7If thou doest well, shalt thou not be accepted? and if thou doest not well, sin lieth at the door. And unto thee shall be his desire, and thou shalt rule over him.


36 posted on 02/03/2013 1:42:20 AM PST by papertyger
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 33 | View Replies]

To: thecodont
Please explain.

Try to eliminate both contraception AND abortion, and you will get neither. The pool of voters that use contraception, but view abortion negatively is vast.

And the boldest move of all for a woman would be for her to outright refuse sex outside of a married relationship.

How's that plan been working out for the past forty years?

37 posted on 02/03/2013 1:52:09 AM PST by papertyger
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 35 | View Replies]

To: papertyger

Thanks for the explanation on the men’s rights part of your solution. Care to elaborate on the “women need to stop thinking they are victims” part?

2 problems I see with this solution:

[1] Those who are pro-life are already accused of only being concerned about the baby before birth. I’ve had people tell me if I haven’t personally adopted a baby, I have no right to be pro-life. [My response - if I’m not willing to personally stand at the border with a weapon, have I no right to be pro-border security?] This stance of promoting a man’s right to sign away his responsibilities for an unborn child only gives them more ammunition to accuse us of only caring about the unborn babies.

[2] I don’t think the pro-choice crowd would have as much objection to your solution as you think - certainly not enough to abandon their support of abortion rights. Liberals are quite capable of advocating contradictory opinions at the same time: abortion? it’s my body! TSA groping or Mengelecare? your body is the government’s! They would just transfer the baby-daddy’s responsibilities to the government, which furthers the liberal goal of having as many people dependent on government as possible.


38 posted on 02/03/2013 5:53:52 AM PST by TropicanaRose
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 29 | View Replies]

To: TropicanaRose; papertyger
They would just transfer the baby-daddy’s responsibilities to the government, which furthers the liberal goal of having as many people dependent on government as possible.

Great point. The "paper abortion" is a salve to the conscience of a man who would prefer not to be consciously aware of the link between sex and reproduction, and would rather the government take his children.

It bears repeating: a woman's ability to become pregnant and bear a child as the result of sexual activity is NOT a bug -- it's a FEATURE.

39 posted on 02/03/2013 1:54:26 PM PST by thecodont
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 38 | View Replies]

To: TropicanaRose
Care to elaborate on the “women need to stop thinking they are victims” part?

Sure. Even though pregnancy rates were much lower before easy abortion, women on both sides consistently frame the problem as what to do *with* crisis pregnancies: not *preventing* crisis pregnancies!

In what I can only think of as some sort of "projection," the emphasis is always on preserving the woman's "security" rather than bearing the responsibilities of "liberty." So it would seem both sides functionally "approve" the status quo, vis a vis promiscuity, they just disagree on what to do with resultant crisis pregnancy.

The universality of this mindset is reflected in the "soup kitchen" remedies that are invariably advocated by the pro life side, rather than calling for women to bear the responsibility forced on them from biology. Unfortunately, each "success" of such remedy only results in further taxing of the resources the pro life movement can bring to bear against abortion.

Furthermore, pro life women are notorious for conflating pregnancy and abortion with respect to the man's responsibility. Men are guilty of creating a crisis pregnancy, a guilt shared by women. They are NOT guilty of getting abortions: only women can do that.

This stance of promoting a man’s right to sign away his responsibilities for an unborn child only gives them more ammunition to accuse us of only caring about the unborn babies.

How?

To the contrary, the only ammunition it gives is an accusation of not caring about women, something they should be doing for themselves.

If women are functionally put back in the same jeopardy they were in before easy abortion, their willingness to engage in risky sex will go back to where it was before easy abortion.

I don’t think the pro-choice crowd would have as much objection to your solution as you think - certainly not enough to abandon their support of abortion rights.

That's the beauty of the solution: you're not touching their abortion rights. By giving the same right to men, you are taking away the "heads I win, tails you lose" dynamic that promotes flagrant promiscuity.

The only real objection I can see is the possibility that women with crisis pregnancies will just get more abortions, rather than just saying "no." I believe that is a hollow argument on par with Concealed Carry Permits promoting a "Wild West" mentality. They both trade on the idea that "other people" are stupid, and shouldn't be permitted to be responsible for their own actions.

Granted, having a crisis pregnancy in the first place does show a lack of judgement, but a woman considering risky behavior is going to look at a potential partner much differently if she knows she may well be the only one that has to deal with the consequences.

40 posted on 02/04/2013 12:44:58 PM PST by papertyger
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 38 | View Replies]

To: thecodont

There’s no dependent to transfer responsibility for if there’s no pregnancy.

Women prize security. They have that now with their “choice” of abortion, or legally forcing their partner to finance their decision to give birth.

Take away that legally mandated security, and they will act in their own best interests. We have failed to eliminate the former, so the obvious choice is going after the latter.


41 posted on 02/04/2013 12:57:35 PM PST by papertyger
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 39 | View Replies]

To: papertyger

Any woman who believes that a man who supports her “right to have an abortion” is interested in her human rights is really stupid.


42 posted on 02/04/2013 1:11:26 PM PST by MWestMom (Will Americans stop someone who views our children as "collateral damage" in their quest for power?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 40 | View Replies]

To: papertyger

Thanks for sharing your thought process. You haven’t sold me on the idea, but I think I have a better idea where you’re coming from.

I agree that abstinence before marriage & faithfulness within marriage is the foundation of the pro-life position, but not every pro-lifer has thought the issue through to that conclusion yet.

I still think allowing men to get a paper abortion to avoid supporting their babies = fewer resources for the baby, unless you’re offering to pay the abortive dads’ share, which leaves the advocate of such a law vulnerable to the charge that they do not care about babies once they’re born. Other than the e*trade baby, babies consume more resources than they generate, so if the dad does not contribute, the full burden falls on the mom, & in our society when the burden falls solely on the mom, Uncle Sugar (using resources confiscated from taxpayers) quite often picks up the slack. While it is not fair that dads have no say in whether or not the mother of their unborn children has an abortion or not, it’s also unfair that taxpayers who have never met either mom or dad, much less had sex with them, are on the hook for supporting their offspring.

IMO the only way women will ever be back in the same jeopardy they were before easy abortion would be if (1) the welfare state is dissolved & (2) chastity becomes a virtue that people value again. Although maybe if all these men who are would-be abortive dads would first ask every woman they are about to have sex with to sign a form waiving any rights to child support in case the sex results in a pregnancy, that might cut down on some of the promiscuity ~ for those men, anyway.


43 posted on 02/04/2013 6:44:22 PM PST by TropicanaRose
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 40 | View Replies]

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
General/Chat
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson