Whenever I come across a pro-abortion person who is actually honest about their position, aka that abortion kills a human baby, I have to admire them a little for their courage in admitting that they support the murder of an innocent human life at the whim of a tyrant. And then, of course, I carefully put that person in the “monster” category. Oh, not “inhuman monster,” nothing like that. It’s not as if regular, ordinary people didn’t sacrifice their children to Moloch by burning them alive in Carthage all the time, after all. And the Spartans had their canyon of insufficiently-master-race infants. Baby-killing is very… human. So are other things, like rape and slavery.

So here’s an example, from a woman who argues that since women have multiple options to walk away from parenthood, men ought to have the same reproductive right to walk away from the obligations of parenthood. She’s right about it not being fair, but I’m not buying her arguments, for several reasons.

As a pro-lifer, I don’t buy the bodily autonomy rationalization bullshit. And that’s what it is: bullshit. The only reason “safe, affordable” abortion is even an option is because of advanced medical intervention that makes ending a pregnancy marginally safer than a pregnant woman poisoning herself (or injuring herself) and hoping really, really hard that the baby dies before she does. News flash: if you require outside intervention, particularly advanced First World technology, to accomplish something, that means that you do not in fact have bodily autonomy over that facet of your existence. If I had bodily autonomy, for example, I wouldn’t currently have a cold. Let me tell you, I did not invite those cold viruses to take up residence in my sinuses and start using my cells for their own reproductive purposes. They showed up anyway.

I’ve seen many feminists argue that an unwanted child is just like those cold viruses: an unwelcome parasite leeching off the host, that the host is well within her right to evict by any means. Of course, this goes down under “you fail biology forever”; placental mammals reproduce using this process, started by sexual congress, called “pregnancy.” (What are they teaching in schools these days? Oh yeah, that “safe sex” is 110% okay and that having a baby will ruin your life.) Here’s the problem: if I post an ad in the paper stating that I’m going to have an open house and invite the neighborhood to attend, I am not also then allowed to sit at the end of the entry hall with a shotgun and shoot anyone who walks in my open front door. Even though due to property rights, I’m allowed to shoot someone who busts down my locked front door at 2 in the morning while wearing a ski mask and brandishing a machete. One set of people in my house has an invitation.

So the old “keep it in your pants” argument – far from needing to be disposed of on men’s part as Janet argues – needs to be re-applied to women. If you had sex, you put out a welcome mat for a baby. Contraceptives can fail – if you’re old enough to consent to sex, you’re old enough to know that the biological purpose of sex is for you to have babies. Your body will autonomously cause this to happen under normal circumstances, in fact. Complaining that a baby “took you up on your offer” to sexually reproduce after the fact only displays your stupid ignorance. Kind of how like crying “rape” after an unsatisfying one-night stand doesn’t make “bad” sex into rape, claiming that a baby produced by consensual sex is an interloper doesn’t make it so. You invited it to suddenly exist where it wouldn’t have before, and now you’re going to complain that your choices have consequences? “Bodily autonomy” – that is, some myth of post-conception “autonomy” that doesn’t exist in biological reality – most definitively does NOT trump the right of an innocent to life. Specifically because the woman in question has a responsibility to that particular innocent, for causing it to come into existence in the first place.

Like many pro-abortion writers, Janet is a biology denier, even though she grants the humanity of the aborted child: she even goes so far as to write “there is no direct relationship between pregnancy and parenthood” – citing the existence of step-parents and adoption as proof. The fact that every child with a step- or adoptive parent was brought to term via pregnancy, and only became a stepchild or adopted child through the failure of the biological parent to, you know, actually do the parenting… does not seem to have occurred to her. The cold, hard, biological fact is that without pregnancy, there is no parenthood. Full. Stop. Parenthood is founded on pregnancy. They are only separated by tragedy, and someone else heroically stepping up to fulfill a parent’s duty.

Sure, we could get rid of the sexist legal regime by letting biological fathers off the hook the same way we let biological mothers off the hook. However, there’s a problem with that, and that problem is the welfare state. Why do we even have sexist child support laws in the first place? Because most women do not have the ability to financially support both themselves and their offspring without a man’s support. And since we’ve paired decreased stigma for single motherhood with no-fault divorce and government-supplied welfare, a pretty large number of women have opted to ditch that whole “responsibilities of marriage” thing for a nice government check, which doesn’t require any adult relationship maintenance skills whatsoever.

But, of course, the taxpayers are understandably a little annoyed at being asked to pick up the tab for irresponsible sluts’ bastard offspring. But that’s not socially acceptable to say, so of course the irresponsible men banging the sluts get to bear the full responsibility, and the state gets a pass to go after the biological fathers for money to offset the tax dollars being funneled to the sluts and their bastard offspring. So what happens if the irresponsible men get let off the hook too? Oh yeah: the responsible parents and all those “childfree” folks get to have their tax money spent to support women who can’t keep their legs closed – or deliberately have more children to increase their welfare payments. I seem to recall a 40-ish British grandmother rejoicing in the incipient birth of her first grandchild to her sixteen-ish daughter because “now the government will HAVE to give us a bigger flat!” in a news piece I read about how that optional-parental-responsibility thing works in socialist welfare states.

So what’s the solution? Nobody’s going to vote to let women and children starve in the street, and any kind of rollback of welfare is going to be painted as EXACTLY that kind of “heartless” choice, even though women behaving irresponsibly and having children as lifestyle accessories predictably results in those women going on the dole. If the biological fathers aren’t dinged for child support, that burden falls on taxpayers – who, notice, don’t get any option to opt out of supporting somebody else’s children. Under our current system, it’s actually far more moral to enslave biological fathers – and let’s call a spade a spade, when your wages can be garnished and you can be thrown in jail for non-payment out of your non-existent income, you’re a slave – than to extort money via government taxation from other people who don’t have any parental rights or relationship to the child or its mother at all.

Men don’t get a choice, when their child is born, about whether or not to support it – even though women do. Okay. Yes, that’s immoral. Let’s stop pretending that it’s somehow “moral” to allow a woman to ditch her parental responsibilities, whether by killing her child or taking money from other parents in order to support her chosen fatherless-child lifestyle. Both those things are not rights – they’re privileges. And they’re sexist, unjust privileges that should be rescinded, not extended.


About pancakeloach :)
This entry was posted in Uncategorized and tagged , . Bookmark the permalink.

2 Responses to Chilling

  1. JoeBlow says:

    “so of course the irresponsible men banging the sluts get to bear the full responsibility, and the state gets a pass to go after the biological fathers for money to offset the tax dollars being funneled to the sluts and their bastard offspring. So what happens if the irresponsible men get let off the hook too? Oh yeah: the responsible parents and all those “childfree” folks get to have their tax money spent to support women who can’t keep their legs closed – or deliberately have more children to increase their welfare payments.”

    Hi. I like nearly everything you have to say in the blog, but take issue with this statement. It would have validity if the child support obligation was in any way rationally related to the minimum cost of raising the child or the amount that the State would otherwise end up paying to the mother. Perhaps even if it was limited to what the State pays foster parents, or even slightly greater. But the reality is that the CS payments are generally made to women who would not qualify for such assistance and are in amounts vastly in excess of that. From where I sit, the women who are going on public assistance are generally getting knocked up by guys with no money anyway.

    If CS was limited as I suggest would all men of reasonable means just cut their kids off at that amount? Of course not, though it would certainly give women pause about getting “accidentally” pregnant, and it would require them to act decently toward those men who do want equal treatment as fathers, rather than spitefully.

  2. pancakeloach says:

    Granted – child support orders are often not related to reality. “Imputed income” is what I was thinking of when I pointed out that men under child support orders are slaves. Limiting child support payments to some reasonable standard would make sense, but unfortunately that might cause the “children” (coughthedivorcingwifecough) to suffer a reduction in their standard of living, so of course “for the sake of the children” the courts demand that the victim of the divorce hand over lots of money to the perpetrator for her use. For the children, of course. We couldn’t possibly just have a presumption of custody in favor of the spouse earning the greater income, because that would be Sexisssss and children need their mother, even if she’s a selfish bitch destroying their entire world for the sake of her own happiness.*

    *NADALT, but pink sparkly unicorn divorces where a rich woman gets soaked for alimony by a male gold-digger aren’t being addressed by this exercise in cynicism. Women don’t pay their court-ordered child support in greater proportion than men, anyhow.

    In the ideal world where I have been made Dictator, I would definitely declare that all monetary assistance to unmarried women with children will be completely cut off, both child support payments and government assistance. The children whose fathers are still part of their lives won’t be affected, because their fathers will still support them out of their innate decency as human beings, and the shrewish women who divorced in the confidence of mooching alimony through child support payments will suddenly discover a change of heart when the checks either stop coming, or are greatly reduced, methinks. Marriage as an institution would quite likely experience a surge of popularity in the welfare classes if the government’s social engineering policy switched from penalizing married mothers to granting them extra help while the unmarried ones had to beg for private charitable assistance, which I have no doubt would be forthcoming from the many rich liberals who would be horrified, just horrified, at what a terrible no-good misogynist fascist dictator I was. And if they didn’t donate their riches to helping all those poor starving children** left in the cold, howling wastes of my heartless dictatorial fascist Nazi woman-hating policy, I would abdicate in favor of Tom Kratman, and then they would really be sorry, and I’d get out of having to do all the hard work of ruling an empire. Mwahaha.

    **If any children were actually in danger of starving because their parents somehow were unable to take advantage of charity, the existing Child Protective Services infrastructure could be used to “rescue” them. The foster system would need overhauling, of course, but that’s a different can of worms.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )


Connecting to %s