On Father’s Abortion Rights

Disclaimer: Please note this post contains some graphic content


“Not only would women, including mothers be subject to the draft, but the military would be compelled to place them in combat units alongside of men in some cases it could relieve the fathers of the primary responsibility for the support of even infant children, as well as the support of the mothers of such children”…U.S. House Judiciary Committee Report (No.92-359, July 14, 1971).

Let’s get down to business shall we? I will just come right out and say that, as our laws stand right now, I do not support fathers having a say in an abortion. The reason for this is that men are not held to their rightful responsibilities as men and a woman is guaranteed absolutely no security in childbearing. She has no assurance she will be protected while pregnant or after she gives birth. She is given no assurance that she will be taken care of and not have the rightful obligations of the father forced onto her back. She can be forced to carry all the burdens that traditionally fell upon men and, with no-fault divorces, even a married woman can be divorced while she is pregnant with her husband’s child without him so much as having to provide any compensation to her. There is no law that is going to force him to support her and provide for all of her basic needs for the rest of her life. Quite the contrary. With today’s laws, she could even be forced to support him. If that isn’t backwards then I don’t know what is. It’s a feminist bastardization of the old laws requiring that a man financially support his wife. Especially with the 1979 Supreme Court case of Orr v. Orr (with Mr. Orr, the plaintiff, being represented by feminist lawyers. In fact the case was part of the ACLU’s “Women’s Rights Project”), all laws that forced the obligation of support onto the husband were declared “Unconstitutional” and gender-neutralized forcing the mother and wife to be equally responsible for support of husband and child and court dues. It was also largely responsible for wiping out mother’s protections in child custody cases as a downward spiral into joint-custody and mother’s flat out losing custody started gaining from that point on.

Alimony and child support are not new things, nor- contrary to Men’s Rights propaganda- are they feminist inventions. Men can, however, thank feminists for gender-neutralizing alimony and making it some kind of temporary thing (as opposed to lifetime support of a faithful wife) that few women actually collect. Alimony laws are ancient, going back thousands of years. Interesting enough, places such as Ancient Rome and Babylon had divorce laws strikingly similar to traditional English and American divorce law. A husband would pay alimony to an ex-wife (as long as she was not at fault) and she would remain in the home with the children. When the paterfamilias system of Ancient Rome fell, we see that no-fault divorce was implemented and men were given the obligation to support both legitimate and illegitimate children alike. Nobody- male or female- was ever denied a divorce under this system.


“…When a child is born to an unmarried woman, Illinois recognizes the readily identifiable mother, but makes no presumption as to the identity of the biological father. It does, however, provide two ways, one voluntary and one involuntary, in which that father may be identified. First, he may marry the mother and acknowledge the child as his own; this has the legal effect of legitimating the child and gaining for the father full recognition as a parent. Ill. Rev. Stat., c. 3, 12-8. Second, a man may be found to be the biological father of the child pursuant to a paternity suit initiated by the mother; in this case, the child remains illegitimate, but the adjudicated father is made liable for the support of the child until the latter attains age 18 or is legally adopted by another. Ill. Rev. Stat., c. 106 3/4, 52…” [1]

Another problem that we have is the failure to distinguish between legitimate births and illegitimate ones. What are we to do about the unwed father? What are we to do about the married man who is unfaithful to his wife and impregnates another woman while he is still married to her? As our laws stand right now, very few- almost no- distinctions are made between a father’s rights and obligations to a legitimate child as to an illegitimate one. By giving fathers abortion rights we step into very dangerous territory and open up all kinds of possibilities to allow immoral and irresponsible men to hurt women. I mean, after all, does the unwed father get the abortion rights equal to those of a married father even if he doesn’t have to married and support the mother? Should he be allowed to force her to bear his child when she has no rights to force him to marry her? When she can’t even count on financial support and a home to live in to raise the child she is forced to bear? I should think not. Should the married father get the same rights over the womb of a woman he is not married to and not supporting just the same as his wife? I should think not.

“A man doesn’t get a say in abortion. But if the woman choses to have the baby he has to support it.”

Well, contrary to popular belief this is not anything new at all. This is another one of these areas (much like mother’s custodial rights), where the mainstream never reports the truth. After the 1972 United States Supreme Court ruling of Stanley v. Illinois, this headline appeared all over the news: “Supreme Court affirms that illegitimate children have the same right to support as legitimate children.” Once again, this is more mainstream propaganda intended to sway public opinion the way those in power want people to believe. It’s also good propaganda to make women everywhere believe that the feminist movement has actually helped them or made life better for them in some way (once again, going back to what those in power want everyone to believe). This Supreme Court ruling did not give men any obligations to illegitimate children that they didn’t already have. This Case wasn’t even about child support in the slightest. All this ruling did was grant unconditionally to unwed fathers all the rights of a married father. Nobody really cares to make much mention of this, however. I used to hear all the time that unwed fathers were given some kind of “pass” and didn’t have to support the children they fathered out of marriage. However, this is not true. As the dissenting justices pointed out, a man could already be made to support an illegitimate child if the mother chose to pursue him. The unwed father, however, had no such rights to pursue the mother in court for rights to the child. His only option to gain rights was to legitimate the child through marriage and accept his rightful responsibilities as a man.

Now, given the stigma against illegitimacy, most unwed mothers either married or gave the child to another to raise in a two-parent home. Both parties (not just the woman) knew there was a lot at stake in raising an illegitimate child, not just the stigma the child would face but also the stigma that the parents would. Our ancestors were not saints. Many babies were conceived out of wedlock but, because marriage and legitimacy was expected, most babies were at least born to married parents. It was very common for children to be born 7 or 8 months after the marriage.


I am not necessarily in favor of forcing a man to support an illegitimate child. This isn’t because I think it’s just sooooo unfair to make a man actually support the children he fathers. This isn’t because I think we should be punishing women for having babies out of wedlock. No, I hold this opinion because I realize what the facts of this life are and what human nature is. Instead of punishing the woman and child this is actually a way to protect them. Whatever little bit of support the mother might manage to get out of the father can never compensate for what most mothers and their children today endure as a result of getting the unwed father involved in the child’s life. Equal rights fanatics and Men’s Rights groups (along with gender-neutralized feminists) use so much coercion to force the unwed father to be recognized as equal to the unwed mother. If, after all, the unwed mother is automatically matched up with her child at birth then the unwed father must be too. How dare us think otherwise? Any distinctions based on sex in our laws have become intolerable, no matter how much common sense they make. After all, we are a civilization that sends 18 year old girls off to their deaths at the hands of foreign enemies just so we don’t have to face the reality that there are indeed real and undeniable differences between men and women. In today’s world, you can’t even walk into your local health department without their being signs posted telling mothers they can help them find their child’s father. But does anyone ever ask what the consequences are to women and children? Indeed not.

The best protection to the mother and child is to force the mother and father into marriage. The best protection is not to get the unwed father to pay a little bit of support, but instead for him to make a home with the mother and child and assume personal responsibility for their support, protection and well-being. This is the best protection that society can offer an unwed mother and her child. Child support and welfare will not protect her. After all, if statistics are any indication, most unwed fathers aren’t going to pay anyways. The only thing that will end up happening in most cases is him and his family will come down on the woman and drag her in and out of court for years on end. How this is supposed to be good for children I’ll never know. In today’s world, nobody is going to force him to be responsible- truly responsible. If his family and the mother’s family were scandalized, however, they would insist on marriage to the ultimate benefit of mother, child and society.


If men want abortion rights then they need to take on their responsibilities. Men have, and have always had, the same rights as a woman to use the birth control that is available to their sex. This is not even an issue. I have said before that I most certainly would never consider that an unwed father should have any say at all in an abortion. I would be on board with a married father getting a say (only to children fathered legitimately with his wife) if he took on his rightful obligations to fully support his wife for a lifetime and carry the sole burden of support. If he is liable to provide for all of the basic needs of his wife, as much as he provides for himself, and takes a personal responsibility for her actions then he should be granted all of the traditional rights that a husband once had.

If, however, men feel this is just too much responsibility for them then let them continue to be victims. I’m not going to cry for nor defend a man who refuses to accept his rightful responsibilities. You can’t have your cake and eat it too. A few months back I was reading some man’s sob story about how his girlfriend aborted his child and he had no choice because she didn’t want to be a mother. Now I have no way of validating this particular Joe’s story to be true or not, but, nevertheless this kind of thing happens everyday. Notice he said his girlfriend, not his wife. If he would have said “wife” I might have been more sympathetic. It’s possible that he had every intention of instantly putting a ring on her finger and providing a home for her to live in. But, in today’s world, I’m not going out on a very shaky limb for the guy. I told him that was just the price men paid for not taking on their rightful responsibilities for women and children. And indeed it is so.

The modern man will impregnate a woman out of wedlock and leave her and the modern woman will abort his child in the womb and somehow we’ll all just live happily ever after in the egalitarian utopia we’ve created for ourselves.


1. STANLEY v. ILLINOIS, 405 U.S. 645 (1972) 405 U.S. 645

On Guardianship for Women

“It’s time to set the record straight. The claim that American women are downtrodden and unfairly treated is the fraud of the century. The truth is American women never had it so good. Why should we lower ourselves to ‘equal rights’ when we already have the status of special privilege?” – Phyllis Schlafly, 1972.

A lot of people have always been shocked and wondered why I always do what my husband tells me to. I have created quite a scene at times by saying that my husband is the leader of our family. Some people praise me and other are scandalized that anyone would still hold onto such a “backwards” notion of how male-female relationships should be. Even most conservative women are offended when anyone says that they should let their husbands speak on their behalf (such as the case a few years back when a whole group of women walked out of their church over the pastor saying that the women should remain silent if their husbands could speak for them.) In the last 50 years it has become unheard of (except in really religious communities who have often made the news for their extreme, and sometimes illegal, activities) for a man to be the unquestionable leader of the family. Even conservative women believe in some sort of mythical “sharing” of decision making and responsibility. Even Suzanne Venker (a self proclaimed “anti-feminist ” and conservative) once said that any “sane” person would agree with women voting. She apparently has no problem with women working either. I had a fan of mine once tell me that he was at a church gathering once where they were praising women’s lib as being the greatest thing to ever happen. Even today’s conservatives have moved so far to the left that hey have a disdain for tradition- especially gender roles. They may still endorse the Bible and the Second Amendment. But, nonetheless they wouldn’t dare endorse traditional gender roles and they certainly wouldn’t dare suggest that our laws should reflect them. In the rare chance that they do, it creates a scandal and immediate backlash.

Anyways, I don’t attend any church. I’m not part of the Republican Party nor do I endorse it (I don’t endorse them because of they way the party is going and the things that they are doing- especially to women). I do, however, stick firmly to traditional gender roles and there is a good reason why.

My husband is not the leader of the family because his p**** has some kind of magical qualities that make him superior in some way nor is it because I’m grounded in religious dogma that tells me it must be this way, you know, because I’m just a lowly woman after all.

No, I obey what my husband tells me to do because I expect him to be responsible for me and take care of me. He couldn’t very well be responsible for me if I refused to listen to him. I expect that he will support me financially and be responsible for my wellbeing in all ways and therefore I let him have the authority of leading us. I don’t want his burdens and it is unquestionable in both of our eyes that he would ever put them on me. He agrees with women having exemptions and protections that women traditionally had. And he also believes that men should be in charge.

This ultimately serves a greater purpose for all of society. We either have two choices: we either push on with “equality” and watch men and women destroy each other, claim victim status, and eventually “go their own way” while our families break apart, our population declines and society becomes a complete wreck. Or, we can realize that, although things certainly weren’t perfect, maybe the age old wisdom of treating the sexes differently where it is logical to do so might actually be something we should return to.

Expecting that women should be treated the same as men and that everything will be OK is absurd. I am a woman. I should have every right not to have to listen to a man’s perverted language and to not have his rightful burdens and obligations forced upon my back. I know that I am physically weaker and have various hormonal changes that lead me to be an emotional wreck over practically the slightest thing. It is a normal part of being a woman and it is often unavoidable. It is also normal for women to have psychological issues right after childbearing and when sexually exploited or taken advantage of by men. But us women have been robbed of our rights (many under common law) to hold a man legally and socially responsible for the things he says in our presence or for seduction and then refusing to go through with a marriage and taking care of her afterwards. We have been robbed of our rights to demand that marriage be a prerequisite for sex or paternal rights to offspring. So, now, society erupts into chaos because the current methods of treating men and women are not working. Women need to be protected and cared for by men and men need to have a place in society that is all theirs. They need to lead, care for and be responsible for women.

My husband takes good care of me. I don’t go anywhere without his permission and I don’t generally go anywhere unless he’s with me. Sometimes it is inevitable that I go out alone or take our little one places, however, and he always knows where I’m going and when. I expect that he treat me right and be respectful to me. He won’t watch offensive TV shows or movies around me. He doesn’t let anyone talk down to me or hurt me. If there are any kinds of problems he takes care of them. Since I hold him responsible to take care of me I also let him speak for me. Despite appearances though, I’m convinced my husband listens to me more than other women’s husbands listen to them. Appearances are often deceiving that way. Being under the protection and authority of my husband allows me be truly feminine in all ways. If I had to take on his responsibilities I would lose that part of my femininity that makes me a little childish and lighthearted.

I am certainly a proponent of bringing back Coverture for women who are married. Under coverture the husband holds liability for the support of his wife and her actions as much as he holds the responsibility for his children (coverture would certainly give fathers more rights than the “joint custody” scams father’s rights groups and gender-neutralized feminists cooked up in the 1980’s). Since the husband holds the authority over the wife and children he also holds the responsibility for what his wife does unless he can show that she was indeed not operating under his orders. Having women in the home and under the protection and authority of their husbands certainly keeps society more stable and creates a better environment for children to be raised in. Children would have the nurturing and care of their mothers while being under the authority of fathers. Married women could also help out others in the community, socialize, or volunteer their time to a good cause like they used to do. These are all pluses for society for sure.

Being considered weak does not automatically equal being inferior the way we have been led to believe all of our lives. Quite the contrary. Men are taught not to hit or fight with women because women are precious (whereas, whether anyone likes it or not, men are not- at least not in the same way). We carry life inside of us which gives us a natural superiority which we should never trade away for mere equality. A woman becomes precious and of upmost importance in the eyes of her husband whenever he takes on personal responsibility and liability for her. The husband knows he is important and he feels like a man because he is in charge and he is responsible. The husband then becomes a productive member of society. His family stays together and he can focus on his career making positive contributions to society. And, most importantly, he enables the mother to do a job that only she can do the best. Her child-bearing abilities make her precious and should always be a point of pride because no man can do it. Women are sexual creatures and precious. We are more vulnerable and ultimately need the protection of men and should be cared for by them. No, we are not children. A woman under the protection of coverture may be cared for and under the authority of her husband the same as her children are, but she is still an adult with responsibilities as well as she still has to care for the children and see that they are taken care of everyday. There is really no bigger responsibility than that.

Yes, We are Oppressed

Women today are certainly oppressed, but not in the way that anyone wants to talk about. Women today are oppressed because we have been robbed of our surest source of protection and happiness. We have been robbed of the happiness, health and security that women once had long ago. Our surest source of protection was Coverture, where our husbands took responsibility for us and held authority over us. Marriage once assured us as women that we would be taken care of, that we could devote our time to having children and raising them and know that we would be safe and secure. We could know that we would bear children for our husbands and he in turn would be required to shelter us from the world. Coverture, derived from French which literally means “blanket” and a femme covert meaning that we were women who were covered and protected. We have been robbed of that security and protection. So, in that sense, I say that yes we women are oppressed.

We are oppressed because we have been flushed out of the home and forced to enter the workforce in large numbers. Our economy was purposely wrecked just for the sole purpose of getting and keeping us in the workforce on the same terms as men. Our security was deliberately stolen from us so that we could no longer trust our husbands and instead would look to a career. The sexual revolution was a deliberate attempt to undermine female sexual bargaining power so that once again we couldn’t depend upon marriage even when a pregnancy occurred. Abortion and birth control were supposed to instead take care of that “problem.”

So instead, here we are, in a world that sees us as the “equals” of men. A world where men view us through egalitarian lenses and no longer see that they should care for us and watch over us. Men are no longer taught that they should marry and be required to provide for their wives and children. They believe that women should be treated and held to the same responsibilities as men. Even conservative men want to see us in combat as well as in the workforce.

Our female ancestors were not dogs or slaves. They had rights that women today have been robbed of. They were not oppressed in the least nor were they “second-class.” I don’t want to be in the workforce or pursuing equality. I don’t believe this is good for women. All I ever wanted was a family and that my husband be responsible for me and take care of me. Long ago before I ever really understood anything much about our history I knew and I felt that it was not good for women to be going out and trying to pursue equality with men. I didn’t really know anything about law or politics, I just knew that something wasn’t right with the way things are today and the way women are being treated and the way we are expected to live and act.

TWRAs want what was stolen from us. We want homes where our husbands are in charge of us and responsible for us. What could make a woman happier in this life than being loved and cared for by her husband in exchange for everything that she does for him by opening her body to him and having his children? What could be better in this life than the tranquility and awe that comes from truly living and being female?

We are oppressed. We are oppressed because that happiness, security, tranquility has been stolen from us. We are oppressed because of all the things that the media calls “advances.” Coverture is everything that a marriage should be. Coverture liberates us to be women. It liberates us from politics and the everyday life of the harsh corporate world to simply be taken care of by our husbands so we can devote our time to feminine things.

“By Marriage, the husband and wife are one person in law: that is, the very being or legal existence of the woman is suspended during the marriage, or at least is incorporated and consolidated into that of the husband; under whose wing, protection and cover, she performs everything…and her condition during her marriage is called coverture.”(Blackstone, 1765)

Random Anti-MRA Rant, Pt. I of Several

I think both sexes are being hurt badly just in different ways because this whole equality thing is stupid. But I really don’t know how MRAs have much of a case when women are being forced into combat, being the family breadwinners in nearly half the families and are having babies without any security at all. The mothers have immediate responsibilities yet the father gets rights any time even if he fathered the child by brutally raping the mother or walks in a decade later after never having even seen the child before. Yet, that’s right, women have “no responsibilities.” Keep dreaming MRAs. Women are bearing their biological responsibilities and then taking on your rightful ones too. Because of our desire to be politically correct we always must treat the sexes “equally” no matter how logical it would be to treat them differently.

If nearly 70% of all married women are in the workforce and 40% of them out earn their husbands where exactly is the justification for these men saying that they are getting screwed over? Most studies have shown exactly the opposite of what MRAs whine about. And what makes them think they should have abortion rights when they don’t even want to marry and support the mother? What makes married men think they should have abortion rights if they aren’t held responsible for their wives? If they want things to equal out then they should man up and take on their responsibilities, this includes leading their families, doing something to change the foundation our laws are built upon today and actually marrying. Besides, if they are freaked about divorce they should seek traditional women because, statistically speaking, they have fewer divorces.

Now my husband would have justification to say he was screwed if I left without justification because he has paid for our house and land and everything we need( how many of these whiny MRAs can truly say that?). But the married men who live around me? No way. Their wives are as much breadwinners as them and they carried the burdens of multiple pregnancies on top of it.

Marriage is Masculinity and Coverture

I have certainly always been in favor of Coverture for married women. These are the principles we need to bring back. The principles that even the most conservative today don’t want to talk about.

Secular Patriarchy

Robert P. George, law professor at PrincetonUniversity, has recently released a new book titled Conscience and Its Enemies: Confronting the Dogmas of Liberal Secularism.  In this book he discusses the meaning of marriage; in particular why so called “homosexual marriage” should be rejected and excluded from the meaning of marriage.

View original post 2,241 more words