Category Archives: Opinion Pieces

Critical Thoughts on Abortion

The taking of any life is always a “killing.” In the case of abortion it is obviously a killing of what is, or has the potential to be, life. But the question is is it murder and is it right? As a society we justify many killings. We execute other humans when they have done something that we as a society see to be wrong. When we kill out of self-defense the society determines if it was justified or if it is punishable as a crime. We put down our animals when they are sick. When a killing is acceptable or when it is murder is always something that varies depending on what society you live in and what time period you are in. In the past the rapist and the horse thief got the rope, but now the death penalty is considered too severe for such crimes.

Thoughts and feelings on abortion run deep. The only argument I ever hear against abortion is that it is murder. Many even go so far as to say that it is never acceptable, even if the woman has been raped or continuing the pregnancy will kill her. No matter her circumstances it should be illegal, no matter what. Then the argument goes that she can hand the child over to adoption as if this is always a realistic solution for women. Not only must she carry the pregnancy to term but, it’s ok, she can always just hand the child over to someone else and give it up even after carrying it inside of her body for nine months and risking her life and going through hours of labor to bring it into the world. As if that is somehow a more “humane” situation for either mother or child.

And what if the father doesn’t consent to adoption? The mother might still give up her rights but that will not stop the father from being able to hassle her in court. Feminism has also opened up to men access to women’s incomes which gives immoral men incentive to harass the mother. Even if the father is not married to the mother and has made it clear he doesn’t want anything to do with the child he can still walk in and change his mind later and give mother and child 18 years (or how ever many years are left after his absence) of hardship and drag her constantly in and out of court. Not to mention he can overturn the adoption later on upsetting the welfare of the child and undoing the mother’s decision to place her child with a loving and stable family.

What about the woman who’s husband has abandoned her while pregnant? What about the young woman who’s boyfriend has pressured her into sex she doesn’t really want? What about the young woman who agrees to go off alone with a guy but doesn’t want to go that far with him? Forget about rape. If anybody sees her willingly go with him the case probably won’t even be brought to trial but probably thrown out in the name of “justice” or something. Studies on abortion show that half of all women say they have abortions because of relationship issues with the child’s father. These women are not all single promiscuous women who are just acting “irresponsible.” A lot of these women are even married. One would think the irresponsible woman should have an abortion anyways but I guess a child brought into an unstable environment where there might be drugs, abuse, neglect or who only knows what is better than abortion.

Those who are against it act as if it is a one-sided issue. The only thing that matters is that the fetus is a life and the taking of that life is murder under all circumstances. Then there are those who say it can be justified if her life is at stake or if she was raped. So what this says is that, in a society that wants the government out of their health care, the decision for abortion should be left up to the state (or federal government) or some quack doctor to determine if the medical procedure of abortion should be allowed. Most abortions occur within the first trimester by way of taking a pill that terminates a pregnancy like a miscarriage but if she must get a judicial waiver for it too much time might pass that a surgical abortion (which pro-lifers consider barbaric and inhumane) might then become necessary. Unlike issues such as divorce, pregnancy is a very time-sensitive issue.

Most women who are raped simply want the thing done with. They want to go on with their lives but if abortion were illegal and she finds out she is pregnant as a result of the rape her ability to have an abortion will depend upon her not only bringing the rapist to trial but getting him convicted. She must now report the rape. If she reports the rape only upon finding out she has conceived as a result of the act the society will say she is just “crying rape” to cover up her “bad behavior” (men, of course, have no responsibility as obviously the woman got herself pregnant and she is solely to blame for the situation). Now the case goes to trial where she must be put upon the witness stand to face her rapist- to look him in the eyes and have all the sordid details of the event related over and over and brought into the public eye and her moral character attacked over and over. The man’s role in sex is to overpower the woman and thrust into her body the only question then becomes “did she really want it?” It is never the rapist that is on trial but the raped. And what if he does not get convicted even if he’s guilty (which is a highly likely scenario)?

Let’s call this what it is. Society’s acceptance of abortion in the case of rape is an issue of unauthorized paternity. The fetus is still innocent but the abortion is OK because of the father’s sins, because the father did something immoral, because the father was irresponsible, because the man didn’t have the right to plant his seed there. Looked at from this light would abortion not then become an issue of men vs. men? If abortion has always been a major feminist issue would feminism, often seen by society as men vs. women, not itself actually be an issue of men vs. men (and the women who help them so that they might vanquish their own enemies- other women)?

Take the trial of the bitter waters described in the Bible in Numbers 5. Many interpret these verses to be about abortion. The woman’s husband is overcome by jealousy because he believes his wife has been unfaithful and is pregnant by another man. The Bible, despite some modern day interpretations, is a patriarchal text. Women are under the control of husbands and husbands have strict obligations towards their wives (including providing for them). The husband is bringing a case against his wife in these verses but the real conflict is actually a power struggle between him and another man.

A person cannot be forced to donate an organ, their blood or any part of their body to another human being even if it would mean saving the person’s life. Does a woman not have such a right over her own being and person? Or is she not a person? Does the right over one’s own body and being not extend to a woman’s bodily organs? Does the state have the right to compel a woman to give her fallopian tubes, her uterus, her vagina, her blood, her entire body to be used to support and house the development of a potential life? Does she not have the right to refuse medical examinations and procedures or can she be compelled against her will and lose all rights over her body and dignity?

Say a person is acting irresponsible by doing something like drinking and driving. Then the person wrecks and harms another person. As far as I am aware the perpetrator still cannot be compelled under the law to donate any part of his/her body or blood to keep the other person alive. Despite the irresponsible behavior, his (or her) body is still his (or her) own. Yes the perpetrator can be punished for breaking the law and harming someone else but his body is still his own and even upon his death he cannot be compelled to give any part of his body even to save the life of another. Does this not apply to a woman’s body? Should women be “punished” for irresponsible behavior and have to continue a pregnancy to term against her will in a society that has outlawed slavery for over 150 years? People can still, under the Constitution, be compelled to perform labor for punishment of a crime. Has the woman committed a crime? What crime? Should the father not also be punished for being an accomplice to said crime? Do we really want to live in a society like that?

All societies have an interest in protecting human life (and increasingly many species of animal life) but a just and fair society takes into account all parties and does what is right for all parties involved. It is not all about the fetus. There are also the rights of a woman over her own body and right to life and the pursuit of happiness. There are also the rights of society. There is also the issue of if the fetus has rights or not. All laws restrict human behavior. They have to for society to function properly but the American way is “justice for all” and solely focusing on one party does not do justice to all. Every single pregnancy could potentially permanently or temporarily injure, disfigure or even kill a woman. Every single pregnancy has the potential to rob a woman of her life and her dreams- or does that not matter? Is she not a citizen with the right to the pursuit of life, liberty and happiness?

If the majority of the citizens find an issue immoral could they then vote upon it to make it illegal? In some cases, yes. But even here there are certain Constitutional and inalienable rights that the individual has that the lynch mob majority cannot legislate away. Being that direct democracies always inevitably produce the tyranny of the majority, our government was not set up as a direct democracy.

Being that it is often seen as a moral issue and the state does have an interest in protecting life it is perfectly reasonable that the state not pay for it (except in certain circumstances). It is also reasonable that after a certain point more legal rights be given to the unborn. So we could say in the early months the rights of the woman over her own body are paramount and later on the fetus is given more legal consideration. It is also reasonable that the procedure be regulated just the same as other medical care is.

Tell me will the church take in all the hundreds of thousands of unwanted children who will come into this world if abortion is outlawed? (This was actually the way in the Middle Ages as bastard children were considered to be the children of nobody and became the wards of the church; legitimate children were the responsibility of their fathers.) Will the church feed, clothe, house and raise to adulthood all those children? Will the society that restricts abortion pay for the children to be born and raised out of the taxpayer’s money? (Conservatives don’t like that one too much.) Who will come forward to protect and support the women and children or must women and children be left on their own?

The Bible talks about love, not killing the innocent, God knowing us before we were born and numbering the hairs on our head, etc… This is probably showing that God is all wise and understands things human beings do not (actually the Bible mentions this several times) and that, yes, creation is loved and precious. But the Bible does not specifically mention abortion, nor does it mention how many children each family should have or say that each family must have as many as God will possibly give them. It says God hates “the shedding of innocent blood” but what constitutes murder and the shedding of “innocent blood” is, once again, always determined by the current mores of the society and the Bible leaves no specific instructions on this issue. Abortion was never even an issue before first-wave feminism and even the church was ok with it up until the “quickening.” Society always translates its religious texts in accordance with modern day beliefs no matter the issue.

By saying that one person’s rights end where another’s begin is to say that a woman ceases to have rights upon conception, that she ceases to be a human being with rights to her own privacy, dignity and bodily autonomy. She becomes nothing more than a vessel that doesn’t matter and all rights and decisions are taken away from her to benefit another. That doesn’t sound very just to me.

In my own personal life I would have never considered abortion but I always knew that every woman’s circumstances are different and I respected that. I didn’t want anything to do with either helping or stopping a woman from abortion, but I respected their personal decisions. And, likewise, times have changed and so have I. When I was young it was so easy to have a baby and life was grand. But I know that I could never feel now the way I did then. I could never feel secure nor safe because in the back of my mind I know I’m not. Our society today doesn’t even grant to mothers even the most basic of protections. Will we compel women to bear children against their will then endure grueling battles just to simply keep those children by their side and in their arms? Do we really think it’s better to force women to carry pregnancies to term and then lose their children via adoption despite the emotional trauma that might last a lifetime? Is there not a person who will stand up in defense of women and children as a special class with special circumstances needing special protections? Will the men of this society not be responsible for their women?

So you say there’s always birth control. But birth control fails. Studies find that half of all pregnancies are unintended and half of the women seeking abortions were using birth control that failed them. Are you to say she was irresponsible? Do you know what her circumstances are? Will you who chooses to judge her situation lend a hand to help her? You want to force her to bear a child so will you be the one who supports and raises it? Anything that would decrease the prevalence of abortion is to be desired but many pro-life advocates even believe most types of birth control are murderous because they stop implantation.

If the husband is made head of household does he not have the right then to take care of his own and limit the size of his household? Will the society enter the marriage bed and force his wife to continue to term unwanted pregnancies that he will have to pay for? What about special circumstances like adultery? What about a pregnant woman who is facing a divorce or who’s husband has run out on her? What about a 15 year old girl who was raped by her uncle or a man twice her age? What about the woman who thought her boyfriend loved her but when she gets pregnant he dumps her calling her a slut and saying it’s not even his child? Will these women need to make their personal lives public and be put on trial to obtain abortions despite the special circumstances of their personal lives and despite the bad situation having a baby would put both mother and child in? Are we to say the young girls and women don’t matter and that the fetus is life so who cares no abortions just bear the babies against their will in physical and emotional hardship then lose them or raise them in insecurity, poverty and desolation?

Could the drastic increase in laws restricting abortion in the last few years really be about upping the birth rate? But is it not the communist and totalitarian governments that regulate women’s wombs in such a way by either forcing them to have or not have babies via forced sterilizations, abortions or restricting access to reproductive services? Will a criminal investigation be started for every miscarriage?

The pro-life position is that the blastocyst, zygote, fetus, etc… is fully human. It’s a life. Plain and simple. It’s the only life that should be given consideration. That potential life is all that matters and the rights, needs and circumstances of everybody else concerned be damned.

The Traditional Family is the Solution to Abortion

Resources:

Induced Abortion in the United States

Abortion in American History

Why I Hope the Supreme Court Strikes Down “Gay Marriage” Bans

“…But on the other hand we hold that the new status will prove to be the worst kind of communism. The relations between the sexes, now so carefully guarded by religion and by parents, by law and by society, will become common and therefore corrupt. The family, the foundation of the state, will disappear…

The marriage tie will be weakened, and separation recurred to as an ordinary remedy. It is even probable that the duration of the bond will finds its limitation in expediency, and the marriage contract be assumed for limited periods, or for other purposes….”(1)

Next month the Supreme Court of the United States will hear gay marriage cases and decide upon gay marriage as a “constitutional right.” As much as I am opposed to the idea that two homosexual couples can actually be “married,” I hope that the Court will rule it as a constitutional right.

Yes, you heard me right. I hope the Court strikes down gay marriage bans as unconstitutional. 

I hope gay marriage goes nationwide. It’s not like it could possibly do any more damage to the marriage institution anyways. The institution of marriage was pretty much destroyed years ago, with legal marriage only offering a few “benefits” to those who enter into what used to be a permanent and binding covenant between a man and a woman sanctioned by law, religion and custom.

The conservative case against gay marriage will be weak. What will the Right do? Throw the Bible at them? They’ll just be branded as bigots in the throes of religious dogma. Say it destroys the rights of children? It’s not like children aren’t already being raised in a whole host of non-family arrangements based upon “anything goes”  legal policies and whatever contract adults choose to make with each other. Family ties are already so weak, “blended” and “rotational” that a few gay couples here and there raising kids probably won’t even be noticed.

Marriage used to have real and true meaning but not anymore. Marriage used to be an institution that safeguarded a father’s rights and the security of women and children. But now a man by default has the same rights and responsibilities to children fathered via a drunken one-night stand with a woman who is a complete stranger as he does within legal marriage. He can walk in or out of rights and responsibilities at his own whim and few women can expect to be provided for by husbands anymore.

Marriage used to be about men financially providing for women and children, but not anymore. Most women today enter into relationships with boy-men who become financially dependent upon them. Nearly half of all men have wives and live-in girlfriends who are better educated and have a better paying job than they do. Marriage was already bastardized a long time ago to hold both spouses jointly responsible for all debts, financial matters and decisions made in the family. Alimony, where for centuries a husband was required to provide for a wife for a lifetime, has now been reduced to some kind of gender-neutral and temporary “spousal support” and nothing more.

Marriage today has so little legal meaning that a marriage license is barely even worth the paper it’s printed on. It’s not about a man coming forward and calling upon a woman, of making his intentions to court her known and taking her under his wing and providing for her in the honorable state of marriage for a lifetime.

Marriage today is barely more “honorable” than just moving in together. Today men can expect to be able to live with a girlfriend for a while and, if they get “serious” enough about each other (or happen to have a few kids together) they might get married later. His girlfriend will split the bills with him and he gets free sex.

Now a man takes a woman as his wife and she helps him pay the rent and helps provide for him. And, oh yeah, he gets to have sex with her (if she’s in the mood, of course. If she’s not then he becomes the all-maligned “marital rapist”). A man can expect to gain with marriage these days a roommate that helps him pay the bills.

So what is marriage about? It’s not a permanent commitment. Either party can walk away whenever. It’s not a covenant. The vows don’t mean much as a person’s word isn’t worth anything these days. Pretty much anything that comes out of a person’s mouth these days is all BS until proven to be true. It’s not about raising children. Most children aren’t even raised within legal marriage with both parents in an intact and stable family unit. It’s not about paternity. It’s not a requirement for respectable sex. Is it about love? romance? insurance benefits? commitment?

There’s nothing sex-specific about “love” and “commitment” is there? So why, then, cannot anyone marry? After all a person can feel “love” for someone of the same sex and people have all kinds of sexual fetishes. It’s all just a personal and private thing between “two consenting adults” so why not have gay marriage?

Indeed, why not?

The foundation of marriage has been chipped away at for so long there’s barely anything left. Maybe the only way change can happen is by allowing gay marriage; by completely demolishing what’s left of the broken, chipped, cracked, weathered and destroyed foundation. Maybe only then will the institution completely collapse. Maybe only then can a social revolution occur to rebuild the foundation of marriage and restore it to it’s former meaningful and respected position in society. Maybe only then will things have gotten so bad and gone so far down that the only way to go is up. Maybe only then can the old fade away and a new beginning be possible.

So I say bring the popcorn and the beer and let’s get on with the show…

Recommended:

Considering how meaningless marriage has become, I hereby withdraw any opposition I’ve ever had to gay marriage

The Poison of Feminism is Deep in Society

After a brutal rape, I became pregnant. Doctors told me to abort. My husband and I did this instead.

What on earth is wrong with society today? This guy’s wife was out traveling abroad on a business trip, they already have two children and she gets RAPED? Wow men today are really true men aren’t they when we have married mothers traveling abroad for their career, away from their husbands, and have no male protection whatsoever? Maybe if she would have been a housewife or at least stayed under the wing and protection of her husband she wouldn’t have been raped. In our screwed up world today it’s even possible her rapist could interfere into the marital union by petitioning the courts for custody or visitation even that’s how screwed up society has gotten. Not only are women out there being independent after marriage instead of becoming one with their husbands but the laws don’t even protect the marital unit or operate in the best interests of the family. Sad though that even conservative Christians who are supposedly “pro-family” don’t even mention the harm that has been done to the family unit and don’t even give a care about marriage being about men providing for and protecting women. Also, this woman is kept practically locked away for days and her husband has no authority whatsoever over the situation nor authority to protect or be responsible for his wife. Of course, I only take whatever I read on the news half-heartedly as most is biased anyways and only tells half the truth (whether liberal or conservative news) but still this is the terrible shape society and the family is in toady nonetheless.

Marriage is Not Meant to be Egalitarian

A husband should be obligated to support his wife just based on the fact that she is his wife, his dependent, and he is responsible for her. It should not be dependent on how much housework she does or whether or not they have children that she is responsible to care for. I see in the times we live in now that a lot of women are telling their husbands or live-in boyfriends that they’ll do housework if he will support her. Of course, then this leads oftentimes to the boyfriend/husband getting angry that she isn’t doing enough housework or isn’t doing her share even though he’s supporting her. Of course, men and women (who aren’t related) should not be allowed to live alone together without being married. But on a husband should fall the obligation to fully financially support his wife no matter how much housework she does or even if she does any housework at all. If a man is rich enough to afford a maid it shouldn’t affect his obligation to support his wife. As much as he provides for himself he should provide for his wife as well and any children they have together. A man shouldn’t be relieved of his obligation to support his wife just because he can afford a housekeeper and doesn’t need her to do housework. In times past men had the legal obligation to support their wives and this obligation was not dependent on the wife “doing her share” in housework or bearing a child every year.

As well, a lot of people look down on childless housewives as though they were not doing anything productive. This is only because we’ve been brainwashed to see everything in terms of money, in terms of how much money it would cost to pay someone else to do what the housewife does. We’ve been brainwashed to believe that marriages and male-female relationships should always be egalitarian. But you can’t put a price-tag on the work a woman at home does, as her work is invaluable. Even if all she does is bake a pie and invite a friend over for tea she has still done something valuable. She has still contributed to society and the family. She has contributed to society in the way of one less broken home, one less unhappy family, one less obese child and one less frustrated and angry woman.

I like to sit down and read a book and occasionally, if there’s anything good to watch, I like to watch a little tv when I get all of my chores done. Just because I sit down for a couple of hours doing something that I enjoy doesn’t mean I’m lazy or “freeloading”. If my husband is unsatisfied with the work I do around the house then he can tell me what I’m doing wrong. It is his job to straighten me out if I’m neglecting my true duties. Likewise, most married women feel they have to volunteer all of their free time or start some home business or something. I have no intentions of starting some home business or volunteering. That would make me very unhappy and no doubt be an unnecessary stress.

A husband should have the legal obligation to fully financially support his wife and any children they do or don’t have and as well he should have the legal right to be head-of-household. It is the woman’s obligation to care for the home and she will generally have her own way of doing things and her own methods. Mostly a husband should just let her do things the way she knows how to do things best. If a wife is truly neglecting her duties around the house and neglecting the kids then it is the husband’s job to keep her in line or punish her if necessary. It’s not really the business of anyone else around as it is the husband’s household and he should have the right to direct his family the way he sees fit (so long as he doesn’t cross the line into abuse and so long as he lives up to his responsibilities). It doesn’t really matter if the feminist woman down the street hates the fact that his wife doesn’t work. It doesn’t really matter if the wife is busy non-stop or what other people think. A wife should not be pressured to be on her feet running herself into the ground all day just to appease the modern-day notion of “equal” marriages. Marriage was not meant to be an “equal partnership.” Marriage is a partnership of sorts, but it should not be “equal.” The purpose of marriage is for men to protect and support women and give women security to have babies. The purpose of marriage is to protect women from having to go out and work and be on their own and to protect women from carrying double burdens.

Every year when my husband files our taxes he is barred from claiming me as a dependent. If we were not married he could do so, but since we are married our laws state that legally I cannot be a dependent and he cannot legally be head of household. Our laws state that we must jointly be head of household. That I, as his legal wife, must accept all the same burdens that are laid upon him and no consideration is given to the burdens that fall solely on a woman or to her weaker and more dependent state. That is not a choice, that is an obligation. It is the law accepting of the feminist perspective and obliging all citizens to follow it despite the fact that it is anti-God and this legally enforced equality in the family has been the primary cause of the complete destruction of the family unit and the instability in marital relationships. But this is not what marriage has historically been about. Marriage is about men protecting and supporting women and being responsible for their actions towards women. Marriage needs to return once again to being an institution about men providing for and being guardians of women and children, no matter how much work a woman is doing around the house.

Recommended Articles:

The Contribution of Traditional Wives to Society

Homemakers Should Not Be Made to Feel Guitly for Enjoying Life at Home

So You Think You Should Go To Work?

If All You Do…

If You Want to Promote Responsible Fatherhood…

Interesting that I’ve noticed my little one’s school is always having special programs to reach out to fathers and to grandparents but never anything special for mothers specifically. Our school is now starting a new parenting program to get “male members of our community involved in our school” and it says “Moms- stay home and rest.” Oh, that’s interesting. It’s funny how everyone always screams about how poor oppressed victims fathers are yet there isn’t a program one that I’ve seen to get mothers more involved or anything anywhere to uplift the unique role a biological mother plays. There are no groups or organizations out there to protect mothers and sorry but feminists don’t want mothers protected because that would mean women might be pushed back into traditional gender roles (oh the horror!). I even had a feminist rival of mine (a “stay at home mother” nonetheless) tell me that women used to die in childbirth all the time so there is no need for a mother after birth and a father is just as good. I guarantee that if there was a program at school telling dads to just “stay home and rest” and reaching out to mothers that there would be outrage, not only from feminists and working mothers saying “how dare you think us women should just be home with babies!” “how sexist!” but also from fathers upset that somebody dared think they can’t be just as good a replacement for a mother in the home. How dare somebody exclude them!

I’ve seen a couple of studies done trying to assess an infant’s need for nurture by the mother but they always have to say that the actual natural mother can be easily replaced by someone else nurturing. There’s all kinds of studies everywhere put out by men’s groups about how fatherless children do bad. They don’t really seem to discriminate between married fathers and men who just fathered a child through casual intercourse with some random woman either. Apparently, fathers are just superior and mothers are replaceable in all ways to them just on the basis that fathers have a penis (of course mothers have to carry the babies, they can’t deny that, but after that they are expendable and replaceable.) But try to find a study about how motherless children do and you will come up empty-handed. Also, do a Google search for “do family courts favor fathers?” and Google will think you made a typo and will say “did you mean ‘do family courts favor mothers’?” So much for fathers being victims?

Our entire society has been taken over by gender neutral principles. There isn’t even a shred of common sense at all. Our laws today are based upon pure wishful thinking and fantasy instead of the common sense that prevailed for generations before us because common sense has no place in a society overtaken by political correctness that has been taken to lunatic extremes.

Also, can somebody please explain how getting more men to stay home and nurture babies and offering them paternity leave is going to make more women want to have babies? Seriously? That’s just more politically correct BS because nobody wants to talk about a solution that has been proven to work for centuries. How about if you want to promote men’s involvement in children’s lives and responsible fatherhood and get women to be interested in actually having more babies to offset declining birth rates we uplift the mother’s natural role in the nurturing of young children and make the father the head of the household? When there was strong legal and social stigma against illegitimacy and married women did not work men were more responsible and more invested in children’s lives. The male role as provider for his children and the mother of his children in marriage strengthens families and strengthens men’s role in families.

If you want to get fathers more involved and make them become more responsible how about we return to the tried and true method of the traditional male-headed patriarchal family that served our country and the Western world so well for centuries? It is men’s abandonment from the provider role and women’s abandonment from caring for the home and children that has led to the weakening of the family unit and men’s role in being responsible for their families and the children they father.