I’ve tackled the issue of abortion once before here at ROK. In that article I noted that while I generally dislike abortion and have maintained pro-life leanings for most of my existence, I had come to warm to the pro-choice perspective. That warming was due primarily to the acknowledgement of a few harsh realities related to the topic, most notably the fact that a lot of people simply aren’t fit for parenthood and should not produce children.
That being said, I still don’t like abortion and do sympathize with those who wish to see less of it. To that end, I’ve given quite a bit of thought to the topic and made a few conclusions regarding the solutions necessary to fight abortion.
First, let us discuss what will NOT work:
1. Abstinence
This is a common rebuttal from the pro-life crowd: “If you don’t want a baby, then don’t have sex!”
Said rebuttal is often coupled with some statement regarding the notion of sexual intercourse being tied directly to reproduction.
Both of these notions are extremely problematic due to their sheer disconnection with reality. That reality is as follows: people want to fuck. People are going to fuck. A handful of people maintain a certain set of convictions that keep them from fucking and have enough discipline to hold to that, but the vast majority of humanity does not. Man will fail the test of abstinence nine times out of ten.
Similarly, social norms in the west have moved well beyond the stage at which abstinence can be maintained. The past 50-60 years have seen casual sex become an accepted part of ordinary life. The days of societal condemnation directed at sex out of wedlock are gone, and it’s not coming back.
In addition to this, the days of sexual intercourse remaining highly correlated with the act of reproduction are done as well. You can thank the pill for this along with dozens of other contraceptive advancements available to modern women. That genie is out of the bottle and it isn’t going back. Sex for pleasure and pleasure alone is here to stay.
Long story short: Abstinence is NOT an answer, and cannot be used as a weapon against widespread abortion.
2. Adoption
Another common argument from the pro-life crowd: “Why not just give the baby up for adoption?”
The answer? People aren’t really going to want them, especially if they are black or brown. This is aside from the fact that the system that children given up by their parents in this society is one in which they stand a high chance of suffering physical abuse, sexual abuse and developing serious psychological issues.
3. Banning Abortion
Conservative initiatives to this end have been failing left, right and center. Abortion is firmly established socially and legally and is here to stay. Conservatives can possibly make them more difficult to obtain, but they’re not going anywhere anytime soon.
So, what are the solutions that WILL work? They are ideas that go to the heart of the problem, which is societal.
1. Spreading Contraception
This is a no-brainer, and every conservative with a pro-life bent ought to be behind it. Fewer unwanted pregnancies = fewer abortions.
2. Changing Societal Attitudes Toward Women in the Work Place
This is a challenging one because, depending on how you approach it, you can and will piss off a lot of people on one or both ends of the political spectrum.
Abortion at its fundamental core is caused by the prevalence of unwanted pregnancies, so we must ask ourselves this: why are these pregnancies not wanted? Often you will find an answer that relates to female academic and professional goals. Women increasingly desire larger amounts of education and longer, more fulfilling careers, and babies get in the way if they come at the wrong time.
There are two ways to deal with this:
A: Provide greater support (flexible work schedules, daycare subsidies, etc) for working mothers and young mothers in school.
B: Put a greater emphasis on ideas of “traditional” stay-at-home motherhood, and allowing or encouraging a larger number of women to head in that direction at the expense of more progressive ideas regarding female academic and professional achievement.
Option A will piss off fiscal conservatives who don’t want to waste money supporting grown women, especially single mothers. Option B will piss off progressives who will see an attempt to roll back decades of feminist progress that has seen women increasing their academic and professional achievements at a rapid rate.
One, or both, of these options has to come to pass. If younger women continue to feel forced into a choice between career/education and motherhood, then many will continue to see abortion as their only viable option in a world where it is simply too difficult for a woman to raise a family and get a degree/build a career at the same time.
Similarly, if women continue to feel ashamed and/or “unfeminist” for thinking about the idea of stay-at-home motherhood and perhaps foregoing a more serious career track at an early age in order to live that lifestyle, abortion will remain appealing. If parents and society at large continue to shame young women who would otherwise consider young motherhood and instead pressure them to spend their youth strictly on the career track, then many young women will continue to do whatever it takes (up to and including abortion) to avoid a pregnancy.
This leads me to my final point, and the most important.
3. End Societal Shaming of Young and Single Mothers, Encourage Support
This is probably the most necessary of all steps and was touched on above, but will be expanded upon here.
Again, abortion is tied at its core to the prevalence of unwanted pregnancies. Why are these pregnancies unwanted? Often because women understand the social costs of bringing a child into the world before they are “supposed to.” It is not uncommon for a prospective young mother to fear the wrath of angry parents in the case of an unplanned pregnancy, or for parents to very severely shame and/or isolate their daughters for allowing such a thing. Said prospective young mother often cannot count on the support of her parents, her community, the father or the father’s family. She can expect, however, to be looked down upon by some or all of those actors, with serious social isolation a real possibility. For many, the sheer mass of shame directed at them in this scenario is unbearable.
When you examine parts of the world where fertility rates are high and young women are not afraid to become mothers, you’ll notice one thing is prevalent above all: support. Young mothers in many developing countries can, upon getting pregnant, expect support from family, community and (to some extent) even the father and his family. These are places where there is limited government support and very limited finances, yet young women continue to get pregnant at high rates, continue to desire large families (women in many parts of Africa still desire 5+ children and often plan to mother them early, regardless of contraceptive availability) and abortion is still often frowned upon. Why?
Support. The young mother in the developing world knows she isn’t alone even though she is broke and often lives under the dominion of what amounts to a corrupt banana republic. She’s got an entire community to help her and a family to support her.
The young western mother, on the other hand, has plenty of money and a much more efficient government, but no support. This is a big reason why you’ll find more support for abortion in western nations than others—it isn’t all about religion and/or “the patriarchy” robbing women of choice. There are practical matters to consider here as well.
If conservatives plan to continue to lead the charge against abortion, then they need to start by becoming the first to encourage the support of young mothers. If you want to encourage young women to have all of these babies instead of aborting them, then you’ve got to lead efforts to make it more feasible for those babies to be raised by said women. That starts with having a more positive, welcoming attitude to unplanned pregnancies at the family and community level, and encouraging broader collective efforts to help raise those children. None of this would completely end abortion, but it would go a long way to making the procedure less common and is, in my estimation, the best option that those in the pro-life camp have available to them.
I fully intend to put my money where my mouth is. I don’t like abortion and, should I have a daughter, I’d quite prefer she not have one. How can I best ensure this does not happen? By being as open as possible with her about my willingness to support any unplanned grandchildren and making it very clear that she will not be judged a deviant or a harlot for making a mistake.
I know she will be having sex early and probably often —virgins beyond the age of 18 are not terribly common these days, and virgins beyond age 21 are exceedingly rare. I, like most parents, would probably prefer for her to be in her mid-late 20’s (done with school, established a career, etc) before starting a family, but she will be having sex well before that point. To that end, I will not attempt to encourage abstinence. While I will encourage the use of contraception, she will know that, should there be a mistake and should she find herself with child, she will be able to come home and be open and honest with me and her mother about everything. She will find emotional, logistical and financial support for herself and for her child in my home. Nobody is going to railroad her into an abortion clinic.
Of course, you may judge the above as inherently immoral, an endorsement of pre-marital sex, illegitimate birth and wanton debauchery. For those who may think this, ask yourself a question: Between consensual pre-marital sex and the abortion of unborn children, which is the greater evil? Does the notion of your daughter being sexually active between the ages of 16-25 strike you harder than the possibility of your unborn grandchild meeting an early end because your daughter was too scared to reveal an unplanned pregnancy to parents who she could not be honest with because they had shown themselves totally unwilling to support her and entirely willing to shame and isolate her along with the wider community?
I already know my answer, but I do not presume to speak for everyone else. The decision is yours.
Read Next: More Women Are Rejecting Feminism
Eh, abortion isn’t going anywhere and I think that abortion can be a good option in some cases. Nobody is going to implement your proposals, because like you already stated, there are things that both the left and the right would hate about your proposals. Thus, neither side is going to take these ideas up.
Pretty much. It is what it is and for a reason. If they want it to change, they will have to change first. If they don’t want to then they will just have to quit whining and get over it.
The easiest answer to this is allowing the father to walk away with no child support. Couple this with a presumption of joint custody in family courts and the vast majority of this will go away.
Also, get RISUG approved by the FDA! It is a simple shot to the joint connection of the vas deferens (tubes from each testicle), it has no side effects, is 100% effective, and lasts ten years. A simple shot within the ten years reverses it 100%, safe, effective, or just wait 9-10 years and get another one.
I guarantee you the abortion crowd will have nothing to say. They will want to, because they have painted these girls as victims the whole time, but when it is shown that many of them wanted it due to free government funded support, education, health care, and business start-up/work benefits; there will be nothing left for them to argue about.
i dont want to have to shoot something into my dick just to stop worrying about having a baby. The first bit [no child support] is on point though.
Still regarding abortion it would be better to have a 12month-24month option for women [basic temporary sterility without having to worry about putting in iud’s or taking the pill every day]. The downside is that women would never go for this [babies are used often for entrapment and as you said for government support] and the ones that do would probably be so over sluttish the STD rate would go through the roof, thus killin any notion of traditional society once and for all [though its pretty much dead everywhere but EE and asia anyway]
The shot in your dick is still the safest way, condoms reduce pleasure and other contraceptions depend on women.
A few days of discomfort plus about a month waiting period to be in the clear, and you get 10 years of no worries. Seems like a small price to pay. The problem is that the product is very cheaply made, and big Pharma can’t really make any money off of it.
Seriously? I had my arm briefly cut open and got the implant. No babies for three years, please and thank you. It’s really not that bad.
A brief moment of pain for guaranteed sterility for ten years is a sweet deal – can you legitimately not deal with that? If you’re so terrified of us awful women trapping men here there and everywhere..
Very true, aside from most men not talking to women here, you are correct. It benefits women, except those who actually do trap men. Me ex-gf for example. Failed to tell me she was no longer on birth control when she got me drunk (does that mean I was raped if I was a woman?).
I dirty dicked her with other women’s vagina juice for like two years after that!
From what I heard it is far less painful then a vasectomy, and works infinitely better in my eyes. Plus, you never have to tell her you got it. So you can wear protection to stave off disease in case she is a liar; or let your wife think that you two are trying for a baby.
OTH, if you actually love a woman, you can be honest and let her know that until you get the reversal shot, and wait at least three moths; your pecker doesn’t peck.
Say whatever you want, but the fact is this…big pharma and feminists don’t want men to have this. Neither does government. Overnight, the next several decades of child support, taxes, and business revenue go out the window until thy can convince enough of the population to start having kids again. Baby boomers won’t like it either, who will support them in their retirement homes?
So, you’re saying that you will not put something into your body in order to be absolutely sure that you don’t have to pay 18 years of child support, but a woman has to take pills that screw with her hormones and bodily functions and its her fault you got her pregnant if her birth control fails when you didn’t have a backup? Stop blaming everything on women and take some responsibility. If you honestly don’t want kids, take some of your own steps to prevent it. Don’t put it all on the girl and say you had nothing to do with her ending up pregnant with your child.
whatever fat female lurker you are, you’re about 6 months late to the party doll
Well in your case, better late than never that someone showed up to shoot down your bullshit
anymore tired platitudes darling? why don’t you go fellate a hotdog, or better yet rub those scar marks from when you cut yourself in the evenings
The entire reason you keep insulting me (btw, not hurting my feelings at all) is because you honestly cannot come up with an effective counterargument.
I agree, woman sometimes abandon contraception in hopes to tie down who she perceives to a beta provider. She will manipulate the hapless beta to make ends meet via child support/SWAT/CIA etc just to support her lifestyle without working.
In the wise words 2pac- “bitch get a job if you wanna be rich”
I don’t remember the time period exactly, but there was a time when men weren’t required to take care of unwanted children; children that women often had mainly to entrap said men. If women failed to woo their suitors, they often abandoned the children. Many children died during this period, and many children were raised by the church and other single benefactors. This put a huge strain on society and ultimately wasn’t good for the social as a whole.
I agree that men shouldn’t have to pay for a child that they’ve made clear they didn’t want, but that opens up a whole other set of societal problems. The solution isn’t a simple one, and I won’t pretend to have the answers, but I believe the future lies in separating sex for pleasure and sex for reproduction, with sex for reproduction becoming more regulated so as to serve the host society. It may be taken as an encroachment on our freedoms, but I prefer to come at it from another way.
This is controversial to say, but their is evidence in evolutionary psychology, and from my own reflections I’ve come to believe this as well, that we as men in our truest form have absolutely no proclivity towards having children. For us it’s always been just about sex, and it always will be. We want kids only to the degree to which we’ve been socialized to (acquired the feminine through social interaction), or the extent to which our constitution is androgynous. Given this is the case (as I believe it to be), a more honest way to live is to take this into account in our construction of society, even as we recognize our dependence on society and others for our overall (life) success, health, wellbeing etc. (I.e. what is good for my brother ultimately is good for me; what helps society thrive ultimately helps me). We need human capital, and the right kinds of capital, for society to function well. Regulating birth may solve this economic problem, as well as the problems associated with single motherhood. In addition, regulating birth will allow us to more adequately and efficiently regulate our resources for the success of the child, without imposing ruinous costs on any one parent. Just my theory on it…
You are correct in saying that abstinence, adoption and banning would not work to reduce or eliminate abortion.
However you are incorrect in saying that your 3 suggestions (contraception, changing social attitudes and providing support) would in any way reduce it.
To steal a phrase from you: the genie is out of the bottle. There is really no way to prevent this problem short of a socially catastrophic event.
You rubbish the idea that people will abstain from sex, however ignore that contraception is readily available. How many men risk 18 years of child support because they cannot be bothered to buy a $2 condom and put it on?
As for changing my attitude towards these dumb bitches? No. Fuck that.
I will not be ‘supporting’ them either.
P.S. I realize that there is absolutely nothing positive or constructive in my comment. That’s because there really isn’t a way out of this problem. There will be no apologies forthcoming for my negativity.
P.P.S. Athlone, love your articles. Not an attack on you, just don’t agree with this particular article.
Thinking that society chooses to shame single mothers is like thinking that homosexuality is a choice.
Besides, having that talk with your daughter is like saying “Baby, I want to protect you and help you, so when you fuck a handful of guys and get pregnant, i will be there to pay the bill.”
Thats worse that divorce.
Guarantee when they can test DNA and find that their is a chance your kid maybe a homosexual, and people find themselves aborting under these circumstances, the tables will turn for abortion and the libtards will be crying murder.
People already abort fetuses for being a part of a ‘protected’ group (like being physically challenged) — and the “libtards” don’t cry murder.
The real answer is to tell these women/girls the truth. It is mostly your fault if you females get pregnant. Full Stop. End of Story. The reason for this is because you have not only more birth control contraceptives than men, but more of them. The pill, Provera shot and intra-uterine device(IUD) are all more effective at preventing pregnancy than the condom even though there is a higher chance of unwanted side effects. It is the risk one takes when one wants to have sex. These are not the only contraceptives available to women either as I can think of two more called, the diaphragm(female condom) and the sponge. There may be more than this for women so women have at least 5 different forms of contraceptives to use while men only have one in the USA which is the condom, and 3 of the 5 are better than the condom on average. Females also need to be told that it is wrong, unfair and unjust to force an unwanted burden on the taxpayer and/or the individual men forced to pay child support when females have better options for preventing pregnancy than men. Females should be told that although both are at fault, she is primarily the one at fault because she has better options. I know of two men who claimed to have used condoms which did not work out of dozens of men who did not use condoms. All these men did not want to be paying child support, but they were paying anyway whether a condom was used but did not work, or the condom was not used.
I also broke apart a feminist female soldier’s argument from the inside out who out ranked me over 8 years ago and who thought abortion was wonderful, and it was wonderful to charge men for at least 18 years of child support with the arguments I made above and what I’m about to say below. Abortion should be almost unheard of with the birth control contraceptives we have today. There are many available, and women have over 4 to choose from. Women also have better contraceptives than men. Some of these female contraceptives work and you will not forget or use improperly even when you are drunk because you should have taken these precautions when sober. A drunk man with only a condom or forgetting a condom has no such options. I agreed that men should always endeavor to use condoms when having sex, but that women should be using some form of contraceptive herself. With a man using a condom and a woman using a contraceptive, venereal disease should be greatly reduced and unwanted pregnancy should be even more greatly reduced to the point of being almost unheard of. I also said child support laws should evenly split the time the child spends with each parent and evenly split the amount of time as well as the percentage of income each parent pays for child support in order to be just, fair and right. I told her that all laws regarding males and females should be equal and equally enforced especially divorce and family laws in legislation and the courts. She had no ( especially logical) defense.
The female soldier who outranked me knew I was opposed to abortion and unfair divorce and family law. She knew that I supported total equality in law and enforcement between men and women. An example is that women should have to register for the American military draft just like men do. I also told her that a large minority of women would gladly rescind their right to vote and want to go back to the 19th century of how they were treated once they got treated like men because the problem with women is they only look at the top men and think all men have it this good. They rarely see how harsh the middle men have it and even more rarely see how harsh it is for the bottom men. Top men may have it better than top women on average, but middle men usually have it a little worse than middle women and bottom men have it much worse than bottom women on average. Men have it worse in some ways and women have it worse in other ways, and this has always been the case, is the case now and always will be. She disagreed, but was shocked to hear nearly all my fellow male soldiers say that I was right and imply she was wrong that women have never had it worse overall than men and certainly do not now plus that(American) women are treated better than (American) men on average now.
Not sure why a guy would NOT use a condom who is adamant about not having kids…
I’m pretty sure child SUPPORT is supposed to be just that… SUPPORT. It isn’t meant to be 100% on the men. It is meant that there is a 50/50 responsibility. (Whether or not the financial implication goes that far in most court cases, I’d venture a guess that it is NOT 50/50)
But back to the condom question.
Why would a guy who does NOT want to have kids have unprotected sex?
1) If you are married, and you really don’t want to have kids (and she does) that is a problem for the counselor
2) If you are in an exclusive dating relationship and she has her eye on the prize, and she “tricks” you. WOW. This is s-c-a-r-y… But I’ve read enough cases to believe it has happened plenty. I’m ashamed to have these creatures categorized in the same species as the rest of us…
3) If you are dating casually, gaming, FWB, etc. I really have no idea why a guy would not wear a condom every single time with every single woman. (I’ve already stated on another thread that I do not condone this behavior for either men or women, for the record)
Here’s the thing, if you wear a condom it’s less satisfying while fucking BUT you don’t have to pull out when you cum which can be more satisfying for the final 10 seconds, or so.
If given the choice, I choose no condom. I have no problem pulling out in time. Also, occasionally you get the bonus of cumming on their tits.
Anal’s a different story for me. Don’t want shit on my dick.
Oh yeah, if a chick tries to put a condom on me before a blowjob I’m outta there (unless it’s foreplay). Nothing more useless than a blowjob with a condom on. Hell, half the appeal for me is the anticipation of whether or not she’ll let me cum in her mouth; I don’t give a shit about the spit or swallow though.
“It isn’t meant to be 100% on the men. It is meant that there is a 50/50 responsibility”
” she “tricks” you”
What are you arguing here?
Then have the man pay the woman for 9 years of child support and have the woman pay the man for 9 years of child support. ANY TIME NOW!!! We all know that is not going to happen because it is not about the best interest of children and certainly not about what is best for men but rather what is best for women. When did I say to men not to use a condom? I tell them to use condoms every time when they have sex to reduce the risk of becoming infected with venereal disease and reduce the risk of impregnating women to reduce the risk of paying unwanted child support. Silly rabbit, tricks are for kids!
Your response needs fewer paragraphs. Please make a bigger wall of text, so much easier to read.
IMHO, there is a big difference between young mothers (say, age 17-21) and single mothers.
In a more heathy society, there would be a lot more young mothers as early 20s women are biologically better equipped to deal with a kid than late 30s early 40s mothers. (And this is before you get into the huge pregnancy expense/complications for the older mothers who are elderly by the time their kids are rambunctious teens).
Single mothers, today, in America, are almost always women who either kicked the man out of their life with the aid of the government, or who (intentionally?) got knocked up by a man who never made any commitment to them.
Absolutely on spot. Completely true. Try to explain this to the leftist indoctrinated aficionado who wrote the article.
“Thinking that society chooses to shame single mothers is like thinking that homosexuality is a choice”
Tolerance of out of wedlock birth clearly varies by culture and ethnicity. That can be seen easily if we take a look at a global view (which will show us that Northwestern Europeans are by far the most insistent of all peoples on socially imposed monogamy), but it can even be seen within certain societies like the United States where out of wedlock birth rates and tolerances for them vary widely by location and culture.
“Besides, having that talk with your daughter is like saying “Baby, I
want to protect you and help you, so when you fuck a handful of guys and
get pregnant, i will be there to pay the bill.””
The alternative involves her fucking a handful of guys, getting pregnant and then killing off my grandchild.
Ideally I prefer her to just not get pregnant at all, but if the choice is between having that talk and perhaps keeping my grandchild around or not having that talk and having my grandchild aborted, I know which decision I’ll make.
Just by you being their to have the conversation with her greatly reduces the chance she’ll be slutting it up or having a teen pregnancy. Most sluts I know have single mothers, or come from homes where the mother is narcissistic or “wears the pants”.
Second what Grit said. You are white knighting your own daughter before she is even at the point of making such a decision. What you need to do is bring her up with the moral sense that aborting a baby/fetus/whatever you want to call it is murder. Tell her every time the discussion comes up that if she does get pregnant, it will be a tougher road than if she doesn’t but she doesn’t have any more moral right to kill the baby than you would have to kill a cop whom caught you committing a crime and whom will likely make your life harder from that point on. The cop didn’t make your life harder, you did, but killing the cop will get rid of the issue (maybe). The baby won’t make her life harder, she did. But killing the baby gets rid of the issue (maybe).
You should also tell your wife that if she goes out and rides the cock carousel and gets pregnant, don’t worry honey, don’t get an abortion, I’ll be here to take care of you.
The proper answer is to dump your wife and if she get’s an abortion, she’s guilty. With your daughter, the only reason you’d help her get back on her feet would be if she was giving up her whorish ways and looking for a long term marriage. Problem is, no quality man will marry her at this point so she’ll have to settle for a white knight in a shining corolla.
“3. End Societal Shaming of Young and Single Mothers, Encourage Support”
Bullshit! We have enough of this already. Available support creates incentives for them to do it more. They should be shamed out of family and city. People who willingly make their mistake should suffer the consequences.
You may be right morally, but the article was about ways to reduce number of abortions. Being shamed out f the city unless you silently abort, probably ain’t going to accomplish that.
Natural masculinity requires the protection the weak. Before they became strong and independent and stuff, women were ours to protect. Now, children are all that’s left to protect.
Strong, independent women have killed over 53 million children entrusted to our care. This must stop.
If, in order to save the lives of millions of children, we must shame a few monsters, so be it. Remove every support. Remove every rationalization. Then pile on the shame until it hurts.
Human lives over human feelings. It’s for the children.
But McGinnis tell us to try even harder the same crappy the leftards imposed on us so many decades ago. I guess we should follow the advice of this “king”…
It seems like more shaming is necessary as well as relentless slut shaming towards girls that sleep around, as well as placing value on virgins and chaste girls.
No offense Athlone but I’m not sure Africa or Mexico are places that should be emulated.
Read carefully. He did not say that Africans or Mexicans support out-of-wedlock births either. People in those cultures frown heavily on absent fatherhood and abortion. Those high birth rates are within intact families. Slut shaming is very high.
Whenever Athlone tries to justify leftist ideology, he turns to other societies for “examples”, hoping no one will notice the bs.
As anyone who has traveled extensively can tell you, Latin American, African, and Asian cultures are still very patriarchal. They do not condone or support fatherless child raising and most do not condone abortion. That’s patriarchy, something the West has lost.
And before anyone starts going on about an overpopulated world, the world is far from over populated. Get your facts straight and stop spreading NWO propaganda.
You are aware, right, that out of wedlock birth rates are higher in most Latin American countries than they are here?
You are aware, right, that out of wedlock birth rates are higher in most Latin American countries than they are here?
You make a good point. The only thing I would argue though is that shaming women doesn’t really work since they thrive on any kind of attention, even negative attention. In order to effectively “shame” them, you have to withdraw all support: emotional, economical, etc.
Any kind of support. Amen.
I completely agree. Shame, plus the elimination of the welfare state’s support, plus the complete transformation of divorce laws that, currently, turn ex-husbands into economic slaves.
Tell the amateur who penned this socialist crap.
Most effective way to promote contraception : Let men the choice to opt out of fatherhood, women will start being extremely careful with contraception.
It’s actually quite easy for men to “opt out” as you say. They don’t pay their child support? All that happens is they get their driver’s license suspended temporarily. My dad never paid child support because he is “disabled” even though he has a stable gf, a house, and a job, but he can’t support his own children? Give me a break. It is so easy for men to avoid fatherhood
– Do away with child support
– 1 abortion limit per woman
I just can’t agree with abstinence. The whole “just don’t do it” doesn’t work. I imagine that there are married/LTR couples that aren’t simply having sex for the purpose of having kids (“you know the risks”), and maintaining a relationship is tough enough without stifling it.
I think banning abortion is just going to find more people either crossing borders to get it done, or finding the nearest coat hanger. And what kind of punishment are we going to dish out to a 14 year old girl?
The uprise of children that would be born to young parents that are unable to support themselves will just contribute more to the economic problems we already have. More kids in foster care/adoption agencies, more people that have to be on welfare, wic, etc to survive, and more incompetent people raising the children that are supposed to be our future.
The way I see it, stopping abortion just isn’t pragmatic.
The first 3 minutes of the movie “Idiocracy” come to mind.
I was thinking about this:
We are quick to say men wear a condom, and sure they should. But people tend to shift all responsibility away from the person with all the options. If you got 27 (exaggeration) different options many of which last longer then one night, why in the hell is wearing a condom or not worse than the fact that a woman cant utilize one of these responsibly? They have condoms too for women, you see any of them buying one?
Do a test one night or whatever: when you are abut to have sex do not say anything about protection and see if the woman suggests, and right before you stick your penis in, put a rubber on. Who is thinking with their genitals? It’s a mutual thing. Not a male only phenomena.
We need to acknowledge that women are irresponsible with their bodies. And society is protecting that irresponsibility.
Women who have unprotected sex let men have unprotected sex with them. The problem is not suggesting that men wear a condom. We should be making them aware that women lie about their own protection. And they do so intentionally in order to get pregnant.
http://www.slate.com/articles/life/dear_prudence/2013/07/dear_prudie_i_tricked_my_boyfriend_into_getting_me_pregnant.html
“Ben assumed the pregnancy was a birth control failure. I told other people that it was an “unplanned but welcome surprise.” I never told another person this, but my pregnancy wasn’t an accident at all. I stopped taking birth control pills because I wanted to have a child.”
“From the moment I saw the positive pregnancy test, I knew
what I had done was a horrible,
dishonest, unethical thing and felt terrible guilt and shame. I seriously
considered giving our baby up for adoption, but finally decided to raise her.”
This has far worse effects on any child that is produced from such selfishness. We need to show men how women can be deceitful well into any relationship.
And if Xojane has an article on this, you should be equally afraid.
http://www.xojane.com/it-happened-to-me/it-happened-me-i-tried-trick-my-ex-getting-me-pregnant.
“My motivation was not to “trap” Alex in any way. I merely wanted someone to replace him.”
Do you see the kind of logic these women will resort to?
Men need a pill. OR, society needs to remove the man must pay for a woman’s choice on birth.
LFMAOOOO @ thinking developing countries don’t shame their girls. Think of rising economic powers like SE Asia and look at their views on unwanted pregnancy. Of course if you’re going to look at some shit hole African country things are going to be different.
Is this even the manosphere anymore? This site has become one of the phonies that do nothing but dilute the message. Roosh, stop letting these clowns give you a bad name.
Carson Daves, why were you banned?
Ah, here it is…
NC GOP Chief Of Staff, Strategist Resigns
Linda and Carson Daves rule the NCGOP with an iron fist, and will stoop to anything to stay in control…
I hurted too my butts.
*too many
“LFMAOOOO @ thinking developing countries don’t shame their girls”
I never said or thought that. What I did say was that many developing nations re host to cultures in which there is a greater tolerance for out of wedlock birth and a vastly greater tolerance for young motherhood. This is enabled by greater levels of social support, thanks largely to larger and more active kinship networks.
“Think of rising economic powers like SE Asia”
SE Asia isn’t a country and should not be described as such. There are many nations within SE Asia and they vary significantly in many ways.
“Of course if you’re going to look at some shit hole African country things are going to be different.”
Most of SE Asia is not a far cry from many parts of Africa as far as levels of human development go. Bangladesh is no less of a shithole than a Ghana, Kenya or Gabon. Burma and Laos aren’t exactly a world away from Angola or the Republic of the Congo.
“Is this even the manosphere anymore?”
Yep.
“This site has become one of the phonies that do nothing but dilute the
message. Roosh, stop letting these clowns give you a bad name.”
http://i.imgur.com/VWr6I.gif
“SE Asia isn’t a country and should not be described as such. There are many nations within SE Asia and they vary significantly in many ways.”
Vietnam, Cambodia, Thai, Laos, Burma, take your pick. All of those countries shame the shit out of illegitimacy. They don’t vary much in that aspect, let alone significantly.
“Most of SE Asia is not a far cry from many parts of Africa as far as levels of human development go. Bangladesh is no less of a shithole than a Ghana, Kenya or Gabon. Burma and Laos aren’t exactly a world away from Angola or the Republic of the Congo.”
You’ve got to be kidding me. This has got to be the most hilariously inaccurate statement I’ve read on this site. Fine, I’ll give you Burma, it’s a shit hole thanks to decades of military rule, but it is now experiencing the fastest economic growth in SE Asia starting from just 2 years ago.
“You’ve got to be kidding me. This has got to be the most hilariously inaccurate statement I’ve read on this site.”
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_Human_Development_Index#Complete_list_of_countries
My statement is accurate. There are indeed many parts of SE Asia that are on par with parts of Africa as measured by the UN’s Human Development Index, the most complete measure of relative living standards we have. SE Asia is, on the whole, better off than Africa generally, but not nearly to the extent that you have implied.
To illustrate my point I’ll use some examples. Sao Tome and Principe, the Republic of the Congo and Kenya all have higher measures on the Human Development Index (HDI) than Burma, which is in the same neighborhood as Nigeria, Senegal, Tanzania and Angola.
Going up to the next tier we can find Cambodia and Laos behind Ghana, Gabon, South Africa, Botswana and Namibia. Living standards in Botswana are higher than in Indonesia and Vietnam. Singapore, Brunei, Thailand and Malaysia are the only SE Asian nations with HDIs higher than Gabon and Egypt. Algeria and Tunisia are actually ahead of Thailand as well.
Thus, it may be worth contextualizing things when you say “some shithole African country”. If that “shithole African country” is Botswana or Namibia (or at least half a dozen others), then going to be a more complex analysis necessary. A country like Botswana would be above average in SE Asia going by HDI, and there are quite a few African nations that could surpass, match or come close to matching the likes of Burma.
You can’t possibly look at this map and say Africa is comparable to SE Asia. And even if they are, my bet is that the more affluent African countries like Morocco, Algeria, Libya, Egypt shame the shit out of illegitimacy.
Don’t know why my image didn’t upload, but here’s the link to said map:
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/3/32/2013_UN_Human_Development_Report_Quartiles.svg
Map:
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/3/32/2013_UN_Human_Development_Report_Quartiles.svg
Abstinence:
It might not be a panacea, but it works for a lot of people. The problem is that it’s not normal. A woman who’s a virgin at 21 is weird, and a man who’s not had sex at 21 is a loser. If it’s possible to normalise abstinence, then it’s the safest option for a lot of people to take. The point isn’t that it works for everyone, just that it should be seen as perfectly normal in the arsenal of contraceptives.
Adoption:
Solution? Stop funding and subsidising fertility treatment for people who are too old to conceive. 35 and unable to conceive (bear in mind that those five abortions you had in your 20s decreased your chances of a successful pregnancy)? Well you’re not getting any help from daddy taxpayer. Either adopt or fork out huge amounts of money on your vanity child.
Banning abortion:
Won’t fix all the problems, no, but at the moment abortion is a catalyst for many of them. If an illegitimate pregnancy is a nuisance at the moment, it would be a disaster if abortion is off the cards. Both men and women will think a bit harder about having unprotected or partially protected sex. Yes, some will be reckless anyway, but coddling them is helping no one and encouraging more sensible people into slut culture.
Contraception:
Society is already saturated with contraception. Abortion is just another form of contraception to those who are willing to undergo it. Contraception encourages slut culture and slut culture encourages abortion. Contraception is like salt water to a thirsty man; it looks like it should make the problem better, whilst actually making it worse.
Work and home:
Encouraging flexi-time and all that nonsense won’t help anyone, as employers will just be more hesitant to employ women of child-bearing age as an unnecessary risk. If the charges are ostensibly on businesses, they are always in actuality on employees and consumers. Might as well be a stealth-tax.
Recognising housekeeping and motherhood as a real and valuable occupation will help. Feminists get angry that housewives/mothers aren’t contributing to the corporate monolith so they shame these women. If men explicitly appreciate it in principle, more women are likely to be happy to do it.
Social shame:
Terrible idea. Abortion and illegitimate motherhood are part of the same problem; dealing with one at the expense of the other is a recipe for making both worse. The answer is to shame abortion more, not illegitimacy less. Don’t mitigate the consequences of irresponsible behaviour.
The only real solution to this problem is to take marriage back to where it’s supposed to be. End corrupt divorce laws, child support, alimony, public funding for contraception and abortion and encourage early and intelligent marriage selections. If you’re a girl making a decision on who to marry at 18-22, knowing that there’s no turning back, do you go for the 28 year old heroin addict or the guy who’s halfway through med-school or an engineering degree? If you understand that virginity, housekeeping skills and a motherly instinct are what will help you compete for that guy against all those other women, are you going to spend your weekends sleeping with barmen and bouncers you met at dirty clubs?
Our problem is that we have men who are too unwilling to shame behaviour that makes women terrible picks for marriage. If men refused to marry and have children with women who got pregnant by other men (and were not widows), then abortions would become almost unheard of in a generation (as women that had them would be eliminated from the genetic pool) and illegitimate birth would become a rarity (as it would be considered a terrible life destroying idea).
Reproductive coercion is normal to women.
http://judgybitch.com/2013/07/08/are-you-having-sex-with-a-fertile-woman-would-you-like-to-avoid-a-little-bundle-of-puking-joy-are-you-trusting-her-with-birth-control-well-im-sorry-but-you-sir-are-an-idiot/
This is why men should protect themselves. Women are trapping men intentionally for their own selfish desires.
I plan on raising daughters that view slutty behavior in a negative light. If they decide to have sex they should at least be in a committed relationship with a guy who isn’t a complete loser, and she should be responsible enough to avoid pregnancy with the use of birth control. As a last resort I would personally rather my daughter have an abortion than raise the spawn of some dirtbag alone, or by putting that responsibility on me.
Encouraging us to adopt the morals of third-world countries in order to decrease abortions also seems short-sighted. By solving the “problem” of abortion, you only increase the problems of overpopulation, low standards of living, and an uneducated populace.
You had me right up until #3. While it’s laudable, has SOME merit, too, you can not compare foreign cultures with widely disparate economic systems with what we have in terms of the overall cost of single motherhood, which is MASSIVE, in a word. Practically speaking, it’s a massive drain on the economy and we do not want to encourage more non self-supporting women to become dependent on the state.
In addition, study after study shows that children born to two-parent families have significantly greater stability and success in every quantifiable aspect of living, while well-adjusted, stable adult children of single mothers are a true rarity. This only touches on the terrible social cost. More simply put, there is nothing positive about single motherhood. Removing the stigma is NOT the answer, in my opinion. I believe that there is not nearly as strong a correlation between increased sexual activity and single parenthood as you might think. Factor in race, and you can see that progressively more liberal attitudes towards sex still hasn’t led to parity when comparing black vs. white/asian single pregnancy rates. Cultural factors do play a role, and shame is a wonderful motivator to not get pregnant, as is the lack of societal support.
Morally, though, this supports your idea about the impact of these factors on abortion. While I am 100% pro-life, I also believe in Pavlovian behavior. If we insist on having strong consequences for instinctual, natural and normal behaviors, we will still modify behavior in a bell-shaped curve. If that curve represents women who manage their fertility as a percentage of the population, we will have made significant inroads towards eliminating the need for abortion for most women. The outliers would still require great compassion and care, but there would presumably be more resources available to them.
Well, that’s all theory and pie in the sky, and maybe I’m talking out my ass. Anecdotally, how many masculine, well adjusted successful men do you know who never knew their father? I just don’t think there’s any tangible benefit to creating an even more welcoming environment for single motherhood. The author is to be lauded for his beliefs that he would be a caring custodial grandparent, but that’s actually what we’re supposed to do, so we shouldn’t be spotlighting it as anything but a consequence of our own decisions as men.
The reason some are “dependent on the state” is because of the state, not that some.
Of course. Even so, 40.5 % of single parents live under the poverty line in the US. (as of 2011, anyhow) If we had familial support networks like many developing countries, this could be mitigated, but if we have multi-generational single parents, networks become strained and disappear, as we are seeing. My point is that if we ensure that there will be no comfortable governmental safety net it would discourage single parenthood, hopefully to the point where familial networks could pick up the slack, but to keep this from increasing demand for abortion is no easy thing.
If I got a girl pregnant I’d tell her:
1. I’ll pay for half the abortion.
2. If you don’t want the abortion you will NEVER get a cent from me, I’ll move country if I have to.
3. Do you need me to phone and make the appointment or did you want to do that yourself?
And, no, this isn’t some beta chest-beating, I already gave that speech (per-emptively) to a couple of my previous girlfriends.
As far as I see it, choosing whether to have a child or not is the fathers decision more than it is the mothers. I mean, all he will end up doing is paying for the thing and gaining a tonne of stress, all while she gets to live out her childhood fantasy.
Your view of reality is quite warped. Perhaps you should see a therapist.
The more I see political messages, the less I like ROK. I cam here for the girl articles, not the “how to be a conservative” articles.
Yeah I’m still trying to get to the point where I can talk to a girl and not bore her away, and actually get her to want to see more of me.
This is the easiest solution to answer.
And it is his number one.
WEAR A CONDOM !
Every. Single. Time.
Don’t listen to the “awesome” manosphere blogger advising you “when to skip the sock”
Wear a condom every single time!!
Side benefit?
You avoid those pesky STDs your bang didn’t tell you about…
Just say never trust a woman instead.
Most people I know secretly despise single mothers. Even when they admit they’re
hot they always append “but she has a kid,” implying that the very fact
that she’s a mother lobs at least two, three points off her
attractiveness scale.
I’m absolutely in favor of contraception and also very fine with abortion.
1) Give options to men. RISUG is one. Free vasectomies and cheap ways to freeze their sperm is another.
2) Give free contraception to BOTH men and women, regardless. No questions asked.
3) If you open your legs and have unprotected sex, it’s the fault of both the man and the woman, fine… but especially the woman. It’s normal for a man to push for sex. Her role is to tell him to take a hike. If she doesn’t and has unprotected sex with the tall, dark stranger… then the tall dark stranger should be excused. No automatic responsibility under no circumstances unless it’s his decision. The burden is entirely upon her and her family. This will reduce the incidence of accidental pregnancies pretty damn quick.
Most people I know secretly despise single mothers. Even when they admit they’re hot they always append “but she has a kid,” implying that the very fact that she’s a mother lobs at least two, three points off her attractiveness scale.
Because it does. But, if I hear a girl has had an abortion, it lobs four points off her attractiveness, because I know that a girl who would kill another human being would also not think twice about enslaving or divorcing another human being (a man).
If you open your legs and have unprotected sex, it’s the fault of both
the man and the woman, fine… but especially the woman. It’s normal for
a man to push for sex.
This is why I differ with Athlone about abstinence not working. Of course it wouldn’t work on men, because we want to stick it in. But women are the natural cockblockers. If they’re not doing their job at fending off cads, it’s their fault.
In general women who are excessively self-directed are bad news. It can be abortion, feminism, credentialism, whatever. If everything she does and says is about putting herself first, she’s not even LTR material, let it alone family material.
This includes women who have sex “for fun” without thinking of the consequences. That’s why I have absolutely no sympathy towards single moms. Not in the Western world. Doesn’t matter how young, doesn’t matter the circumstances. You let him inseminate you. End.
Um…so it’s perfectly fine for men to have sex “for fun” but not women?
Again though, the problem with everyone saying “RISUG” and “Free vasectiomies” is that trapping men into child support is a HUGE part of the female imperative. They and the gammas will never allow it to happen.
Oh-I am criticized for not having kids,
I can actually sort of agree with 3. When you see a single teen mom think, “Yay! She chose not to abort!” – But you know that’s kind of what I like about this site, is that every columnist doesn’t have to reflect the majority of readers for worry of “offending people”.
I can actually sort of agree with 3. When you see a single teen mom think, “Yay! She chose not to abort!” – But you know that’s kind of what I like about this site, is that every columnist doesn’t have to reflect the majority of readers for worry of “offending people”.
Athlone, I must give you props for penning this piece, even if I may disagree with you in a few ways. It’s a valiant, and respect attempt to broach the issue. Even prompted me to make an account. You missed one vital point: proper sexual education.
If you want to reduce the amount of abortions then properly educate your children about sex. Most anglo-saxon nations tend to avoid it, instead of acting like parents and teaching their damn kids. Compare the rates of teen pregnancy of anglo-saxon countries with those of mainland europe where sex is not seen as an evil thing, and public nudity isn’t so taboo. Nipples and breasts are just that: nipples and breasts.
I also must disagree with supporting single mothers, despite being the child of one. This is exactly the reason why I discourage it. Bless my mother, she did well, but even those children that don’t end up criminals coming from single-mother homes, still come at a disadvantage. No woman can teach a boy how to be a man. Any more than I could teach a girl how to be a woman. I suspect being a tomboy is less of a disadvantage than being a pussy/beta/wimp. I’m lucky I found the redpill in my mid-20s too, but it’s been an uphill struggle to teach myself, and relearn, how to be a man.
“End Societal Shaming of Young and Single Mothers, Encourage Support”
I have to disagree with you right there, women in general already get all the support they can get and more in the expense of men, they have 100% of reproduction, if she opts to keep the child while still on high school she has plenty of options, going to welfare, daycare etc, also there are programs dedicated to help high schoolers girls to continue their education, all of these tax payer funded program are support the keep feeding the entitlement complex, if the dad happens to be a high schoolers too he is just fucked, there is no help for him of any sort..
Social shaming comes from women themselves, is like slut shaming, look at the black community, how mush help you think african americans young girls need, I don’t want to support something that has only created more problems over and over again.
An integral part of not shaming young mothers, is to quit shaming younger women from wedding older guys. Much of the social stigma related to young motherhood, is due to neither parent being financially able to raise children according to social norms. Largely because most young women who get pregnant, do so by young guys.
Whereas, if an 18yo woman (or, heck, 15) got pregnant by a 30-35yo male with a stable career who wanted children; much of the rationale for calling her irresponsible would go out the window.
As I’ve argued before; a more complex economy, have delayed adulthood (defined as ability to support self, and family should he choose) for males; but basic biology has prevented a similar change from taking place for women. She is still, statistically from a health pow, best married at 16, 1st kid at 17…. Just like always. But social norms still cling to the antiquated notion that marrying one’s high school sweetheart is the ultimate ideal; never mind the two of them having no combined income to speak of until she is an almost barren banged up old jalopy; while he, if at all attractive, has many better/hotter/tighter options available amongst younger women. And in fact, the pervasive institutionalization of growing up; where kids are segregated from adults and siblings; and towards same age cohorts for all their social needs, have arguably made things worse than it otherwise wold be.
amen!
You actually think girls should be married at 16 and having their first kid by 17? You’re aware that girls are still developing into their early 20s, right?
Actually virtually all the advice given here is wrong. When abortion was legalised in America, pregnancies went down by 30% but births only went down by six percent. In other words, people’s behavior changed and they engaged in more high risk activity. Abstinence does work. Whether we can go back to that I do not know, but it is not that case that it does not work.
Making more birth control available does not work. It just encourages women to sleep around more. Again we have done this experiment. We know. You can see that with HIV prevention for instance. Handing out condoms does not work. Uganda’s ABC approach – which first stresses abstinence – does.
Encourage support? The more we pay for single mothers, the more single mothers we get. Again you can look at Europe and see that the number of single mothers is directly related to the amount of money they get from the state. We need to shame them even more and pay them nothing.
This was something the Pope was actually 100% correct about inm Humae Vitae. Introducing birth control and abortion trivialises sex and reproduction – and by extention women. Now of course most people think that is a good thing, but it is a thing nonetheless. Which is great for PUAs. Nothing like girls who think nothing of the consequences of putting out. But that lifestyle depends on welfare and abortion. That is not going to change.
“Encourage support? The more we pay for single mothers, the more single
mothers we get. Again you can look at Europe and see that the number of
single mothers is directly related to the amount of money they get from
the state. We need to shame them even more and pay them nothing.”
This would not be an issue if western societies had stronger familial support networks to soak up childcare costs and ease the burden on individual parents. Such networks exist in most parts of the world outside of the west, but Western European culture tends to emphasize exogamy, monogamy and a focus on the nuclear family, limiting the viability of extended kinship networks that young broke mothers in broke banana republics are able to rely on.
Use condoms-99 percent effective.Encourage women to sleep around but not men.I get the picture.
When did feminists start writing here? Seriously fuck people who are pro abortion. I’m all for bringing back the concept of bastards and doing away with child support, but abortion is a big part of why women get to slut around today. It’s so degenerate and sick to kill your unborn child.
“When did feminists start writing here?”
They didn’t?
“Seriously fuck people who are pro abortion.”
Alright then.
Where’s the “abortion is wonderful” article on this website that you’re complaining about?
Male reproductive rights to go along with female reproductive rights. If women knew men were under no obligation to fund their little fuckups without consent, you’d see unplanned pregnancies decline by orders of magnitude overnight.
A thoughtful analysis of a difficult issue where opinions will differ, bravo.
What societal shaming of single mothers? That’s long gone!
This author is a degenerate. Ignore all of these “solutions”
http://i.imgur.com/BOkma.gif
Yeah let’s cheer on single mothers! Positive reinforcement of the most powerful predictor of emotional instability and violent behavior! Sounds great to me! And yeah adopted children have it pretty rough, being chopped up in the womb is their best bet. I understand that you are what is known as mentally retarded so this was what we fully functioning adults call sarcasm.
Personally, I think that we should permanently sterilized both the mother and the father of every child that gets aborted. Both are too selfish and irresponsible to have children. If they want kids later on, they can adopt.
Complete leftist bullshit, with a lot of anthropological ignorance too. The plan is to make all the tax-enslaved men in society and specially, the grandfathers of the girls, to economically and psycologically pay for the slutiness of modern women.
Great plan. Communist tiranny plus subsidized dysgenics plus full-blown slutiness. I don’t really grasp how that’s different from what we have right now.
I am the son of a single almost-teenager mother. My father’s family pressured her into abortion, but she refused, with the advice of my mother’s parents, who were the ones who really fed me, clothed me and educated me for more than sixteen years.
I know what the heck I’m talking about.
That said, I’m not going to work me to death even more to support rainbow mothers, teenage sluts, and their paramours (a quarter of them, mongrel colonizers). I am not going to subsidize the feral fertility of amerinds, negroes and 90-points mongrelizing chavs either.
Shame is esential at the societal level, as every anthropologist know. Shame is what is preventing each and every teen-whore out there to becoming pregnant.
The question is that there are some problems, so complex, that have no “solution”, in the mechanistic primitive understanding of “solution” so prevalent since the Illumination (aka “Enlightment”).
Repeat with me: is has no “solution” in the sense of “mechanical fix”. It will be the cultural evolution (involution) of the whole society, in a painful process, what will work out a “solution”, understanding solution as “imperfect bug good enough societal arrangement”.
Given that no man should be tax-enslaved to subsidize the reproduction of the scum and considering that his resources should be used to increase the number of his own children, the “solution” for too-young parents is the same it always was: 1) endure the shame that society has to apply onto you to warn others against your error. 2) Get married. Make the father pay for his child.
Does the father, or the father’s family, refuse to wed? More shame. Social ostracism. Besides, that means economic consequences in the long term.
Of course, TODAY, a marriage between a teenslut and a chav means a divorce in some years, as long as “society” (other working men) are made to support the divorcee women’s children and as long as divorce laws transform the divorcee men into their ex-wife’s economic slaves.
The “solution”, understanding that word as an imperfect but fairly better situation is 1) far,far,far more shaming (I cannot emphasize this point enough) plus 2) the destruction of all those mechanisms of the welfare state that outsource the costs of irresponsability on other unrelated people plus 3) the complete reform of the divorce laws to make it as hard and as unappealling to women as possible (they are starting more than the 90% of all the divorces).
The final state of society after all these points are achieved is one in which there are far less out-of-wedlock births, plus far more fertility in young women (because people want to fuck, yeah), plus far more young families, plus far more discipline in children and teenagers (by the father presence in the family), plus improved academic results, plus less crime in teenagers. A far more rightist society in all realms, because the consequences would cascade on many different spheres.
What you are advocating here is the same social-democrat (in US parlance: socialist) BULLSHIT that they -the leftards- have been pushing for seventy years or so in the whole Whitesphere. Look at the results. You’re advocating for France’s model.
Suffer the shame and isolation of society. Pay the food, clothes, health-care, education, housing and transport of your own children, just as it always was. Feel the pressure of your family. Enter a weddding knowing that your husband is not going to be your financial slave no more if you divorce from him. In negroes, it means ghetto. In euros it means traditional society, that is: stable families, appropriate fertility, high parental investment in the next generation and an ordered society.
Please, can anybody explain why we should endure this half-baked same-old same-old far-leftism from this aficionado? Yes, I’m talking about Athlone McGinnis. If I want the hear the same failed leftist poison I’ve been hearing my whole fucking life I just have to turn on the TV…
That’s what we really need: aficionados parroting the same line, word by word, than any politician of the System in any western country,,,
#1 should have been “Parents should teach their kids RESPONSIBILITY”. Sounds like the author wants free birth control for all.. no personal responsibility. Pretty sad. I was taught that if I wanted something I needed to pay for it, or save up for it if I couldn’t afford it right away. Not get a free handout. I was also told that there was a word for putting my needs ahead of someone else’s needs. And, yes, an unborn child is a ‘someone’.
Educating the public what abortion entails will reduce the high rates of abortion. It is a brutal and evil procedure that kills unborn children. Feminists lecture about women’s choice but the unborn have no choice. Feminists also forget about fathers having choice in this issue.
I don’t see how telling your daughter before she has sex that she will not have to suffer any consequences for her failure to act responsibly is going to help limit the number of abortions. I think it’s that kind of thinking that got us into this trouble in the first place. “Whatever happens we MUST protect the girl from the consequences of her actions! We must protect her from “Bad Feels” no matter what!”
Life is not like that. Consequences are how life teaches us not to eat the red berries! Somebody – hopefully only ONE somebody – had to die so that the tribe could learn that truth. Don’t eat the fucking red berries!
AND DON’T FUCK UNLESS THE YOU ARE BOTH WILLING TO ACCEPT THE CONSEQUENCES OF WHAT MIGHT HAPPEN.
If we ever hope to return, regain, reestablish – whatever word you want to use – anything like a properly functioning sexual and reproductive dynamic in this society both women AND men have got to be held responsible for their actions. They MUST be made to SUFFER for their freely chosen behavior: promiscuous sex.
Women are the gatekeepers of sex and must once again, as they did in the past, bear the brunt of this responsibility. Prior to the Pill, women knew what terrible consequences awaited them if they gave it up before marriage. If they got pregnant they had four options and four options only:
one, have the baby in secret and put it up for adoption;
two, have the baby, keep it, and bring disgrace AND great financial burden upon themselves and their family;
three, force the father to marry them (this was accomplished with the help of both families and sometimes even the court system); or,
four, abortion.
None of these choices is optimal. The optimal is and always has been to wait until you are married to have sex. This means MARRYING YOUNG. Or, as Dalrock says, “Marry young and then do it like rabbits.” Unfortunately, for MOSTLY feminist reasons, our present society finds that idea ANATHEMA.
But if you are going to have sex outside of marriage, first of these “less optimal” choices is, use reliable birth control. This includes not only the pill or the patch, but also the condom (the man’s responsibility!). Not perfect, but close to 99% effective when actually used!
When a pregnancy results, in spite of heroic efforts to prevent it, the four options mentioned above come into play: adoption, raising a bastard, a shotgun wedding, or abortion.
Now the author thinks having a bastard child is the best of these bad choices. BUTBUTBUTBUTBUT he desperately wants to protect HIS princess from the consequences of her bad decision and he justifies it by saying he is preventing an abortion.
I understand this feeling perfectly because I have a young adult daughter. But if our daughters get pregnant, is the proper response to protect them from the consequences of their actions? Should we REDUCE those consequences by agreeing to step in and act like HER HUSBAND? The husband she should have had before she got pregnant?
I’ve seen families where the parents have done this. The girl/woman became/continued to be a spoiled, selfish, self-absorbed entitled BITCH who treated her parents like her child/ren’s nanny (cause where there’s one there will be two!).
Or else the woman just drops the kids off to live with grandma. (It’s always grandma, never grandpa, because grandma isn’t married either!) This dynamic is endemic in the black community.
But as the Riddler said in “Batman Forever”, “Don’t kill him. If you kill him, he won’t learn nothin’.” Someone, probably many, many someones, has got to face the consequences of eating the red berries or the rest of the tribe will never learn.
My solution? I think we should work to end ALL welfare for unwed mothers. Welfare should ONLY be given to intact families of one mother and one father. NEVER to grandmas because for some that’s just how they perpetuate their ride on the government gravy train.
What affect will this have on abortion? I don’t know. What I do know is no one needing an abortion CARES about the life they are taking or the harm they are doing to their society.
And I can’t make them care. I can’t change the world. I’m just going to have to wait for the justice of God.