Abortion is baby killing.
Only in the reality averse feminism-is-about-equality mindset is abortion anything but the termination of a human life.
Technically speaking it can’t accurately be called murder, since technically speaking, it’s legal. The baby is no less dead, though, for that paltry distinction. But since it is a lawful action in which men are completely voiceless, and looks to remain that way, there is only one appropriate response.
It’s time for men to be allowed to legally abort fatherhood during the same period of time a woman is allowed to do the same by visiting her local clinic.
It’s time for a man to have the unfettered social and legal backing to look at a woman whom he has just impregnated directly in the eye and say, “See ya, wouldn’t want to be ya,” and to stroll off whistling a tune, to enjoy less inconvenient relationships, without his wallet being any lighter or his conscious any heavier.
If you are waiting for a punch line or some well placed literary device to put this into a different perspective…don’t. There isn’t one coming, nor should there be.
In the spirit of calling abortion what it is, let us examine the motives behind the decision to get one with the same unblinking candor. Abortion, in most circumstances, is not a decision to avoid pregnancy, but to avoid motherhood. In fact, the term reproductive rights is a misnomer; a postmodern guise to cover the real issue. It isn’t “My body, my choice,” it’s “My lifestyle, my choice,” even if it means killing a baby because it gets in the way.
In many, many cases, it is about choosing personal freedom and a social life over life itself. But what the heck, it’s 2010 people, and grrls gots to have choices.
But with that in mind, you will have to excuse me if I yawn at any outrage over the idea of a man being given the same options, especially given that men have already been aborted from the decision making process. That suits a lot of people and any idea of changing things will anger some as well.
The traditional male, from atop his white stallion, will scoff at the very idea of men’s choice, of course. His indignation will be echoed by his twin sister, the gender feminist. Somewhere, in the midst of sorting out responsibilities, both will invoke the “your baby, you pay,” catch-all, one of many shared attitudes that make these ostensibly strange bedfellows more like two peas in a pod when all is said and done.
But in their rush to ensure that she is given the role of sole arbiter, they will both adamantly deny the major flaw in their position.
There is no reason at all to use the expression “your baby,” when talking to any man in western culture, any more. Because when push comes to shove, as it often does, it is not his baby, it is hers.
He is a father with her permission and approval only. His genes, in the form of another human being, have become her property, lending new meaning to wearing the pants in the family, phonetically speaking.
And if the man is “fortunate” enough to be allowed access to his child, it will often be just enough involvement to ensure him the status of glorified visitor, and the opportunity to watch powerlessly as the child’s mind is poisoned against him.
There is no one to stop her. Indeed, there is the full force of the legal establishment at her disposal to ensure she gets away with this and that he keeps his mouth shut while it happens.
She will also be the master of where the father’s money goes, and when. She can spend that money, confiscated for the supposed benefit of the child, at the grocery store, a department store, or at a crack house. It is all up to her. More choices for women in a world full of them.
If he refuses to pay, whether from defiance or from poverty, it will land him in jail. He can stand behind her, or sit behind bars. Such are the other worldly of choices for fathers.
So when we look at a man and say “your baby,” we need to practice doing that with a straight face. And it might be better if we didn’t say it with an air of moral authority. Anyone who understands how hollow that morality and authority are will find any haughtiness quite laugable.
If you want to really understand how the western legal establishment sees men, take a trip to the nearest retail shopping center. Find some poor guy there, the one we call the modern mall mule. He will be the one walking behind a woman carrying her packages as she shops; her only burden being the weight of his credit card.
There’s your legal model of masculinity, and it bears out in court nearly every time you see a man pitted against a women for pretty much any reason. Nowhere is this more evident than when a child is involved.
If you have a car, but have to ask for the keys from someone else who always holds them, it isn’t your car. It is just something you get to borrow, even if you’re the one making the note, paying for repairs and buying the fuel.
And speaking of the note, this will also be a matter of contention from fiscal conservatives. I am sure the cringes from some of them reading this are intense as they imagine the massive spike in welfare and other entitlements stemming from walk away fathers who ought to be paying for their own choices.
My reaction to that?
Who freakin’ cares? I sure don’t.
The government is currently operating with 100 trillion in future liabilities, half of which are unfunded. Yes, that is 100 trillion dollars, and that is from just two entitlement programs. And now the same government is selling us the lie that we can climb out of a cavernously deep recession with a non producing service based economy, fueled only by credit based consumerism, by simply printing more money every time a failed bank proves that the system isn’t working.
The lunatics and liars are already in charge, so what is another hundred billion or so in entitlements?
And as long as the voting public has seen fit to shape a government that ignores its own constitution, stealing from some of its citizens and giving it to others (minus the big skim, of course), then who should deny them?
And we have been on this track for well over a generation. A change in administration won’t make any difference in the age of Obamabush.
And at last some will be asking “Hey, what about the baby? What about what is best for the baby? Are we really supposed to support men for the right to walk away from the children they create and shun all responsibility?”
The answer is yes. First, equality, for those that can stomach it, is a cruel master. Deal with it. Second, if ‘What about the baby?’ isn’t allowed to be asked before one is cut out of a woman’s womb and thrown into a garbage bin, then anyone asking the question now should just shut up.
We don’t care about what is best for children in this culture, we care about what is best for women or whatever they happen to say is best for them at the moment. More than anything else, it is about giving women their way. In pursuing that we regularly kill children or rip their lives to shreds in a hundred other ways. And people want to ignore all that and start drawing lines here?
Please.
Suddenly engaging in a fit of concern and morality when it involves a walk away father may be instantly popular. But let’s face it; we all know the legal system is not seriously going to allow men to stop women from using children to siphon off their finances to support unilateral decisions any more than it is ever going to stop abortions.
But we also know that things will continue this way because we live in a parasitic matriarchy, and that any sense of real justice that gets it the way of its operation will be simply removed, as easy as an unwanted baby.
If a man wants to walk away from that, no one should fault him.
Paul Elam is the Editor-in-Chief of Men’s News Daily and the publisher of A Voice for Men.
Dr. Paul is a pseudonym only. The author of this article, Paul Elam, is not a qualified medical or psychiatric professional and does not purport to offer counseling, psychiatric services, or expert psychological advice.
