Where is the Father?

Pro-choice feminism is inhibiting male responsibility.

27 June 2021

Annick Tankus

The Pro-Choice narrative “My body, my choice” shines the spotlight purely on the woman: the mother. This spotlight matches the new-wave feminism that many who are Pro-Choice appear to embrace. The woman is in control. She has the say. She has the right. Let no man tell her what to do. Yet, at the same time, these Pro-Choice feminists demand men to “do more than the minimum” and “take responsibility for their actions.” This double-sided narrative has done nothing more than allow for men to continue in their wayward acts or prohibit men from wanting to fulfill their responsibilities.

According to the American Academy of Pediatrics, the father figure has changed over the course of time from sole breadwinner of the traditional family to stay-at-home dad and more. And let us be real, the man as a symbol has not always been the most righteous, godly, upstanding image—regarding the treatment of women. We have seen the abusiveness, immorality, and irresponsibility of many fathers that have pervaded society. Nevertheless, the man as a father plays a vital role in the upbringing of children, especially their sons. They serve in the roles of provider, supporter, comforter, role model, etc. A poor father figure often leaves many children to feel lost and neglected which negatively shapes their view on fatherhood affecting future generations. But instead of wanting to break this vicious cycle, the new-wave feminism and Pro-Choice agendas strengthen and continue it.

Johnathon Abbamonte, from Pop.org, cites that “73.8% of women with a history of abortion…experienced at least subtle forms of pressure to terminate their pregnancy.” The National Center for Biotechnology Information (NCBI) further states that “partner related reasons” makes up 31% of why women choose to abort (Understanding Why). If she does not abort, she will most likely account for raising one of the 18.3 million (1 out of 4) children who will be raised without a father (US Census Bureau according to Fatherhood.org). The US Census Bureau continues in their “Survey of Income and Program Participation” to state that out of all the fathers, 7 million (20.2%) will be absent (Two Extremes of Fatherhood).

NCBI, in the same article, also states that 41% of abortions occur due to financial reasons. It can be clearly seen that mother cannot solely rely on herself to provide for her child and herself. Whether society wants to call it stereotypical/sexist or not, the mother looks towards the father to offer aid. While this dependence was meant and is beautiful, sin has allowed for man to look at the woman as vulnerable and weak, easy to coerce. This is obviously not all men, but it does explain the mindset of partners or one-night stands who pressure for abortions. They recognize that the woman relies on them whether because of “love” or for support.  

Thus, abortions only allow for these types of men to be able to remove responsibility from themselves and place the “problem” on the mother only. Is this really what a woman wants? Is this truly freedom? Or is this—in modern society ideology—another misogynistic, sexist ploy to oppress the female? Besides the other moral issues surrounding abortion, removing and degrading the role/responsibility of the father and fatherhood has done nothing more than to hurt women, children (boys/men regarding this topic), and society.

Society and feminism complain of the lack of men taking responsibility and action yet mocks and scorns the idea of masculinity. Starting at a young age, males are brought up hearing that they are sexist and misogynistic and unfair to women. Then they hear that they are not doing the “bare minimum” even though a few seconds before they were accused of not allowing a woman to do what a man can do. With abortion, “My body, my choice” (or any abortion argument) sends a message to men that their actions have no consequence. They are free to go around and have no care in the world for what they have done.  

But this is clearly immoral and unfair. He does share a role in a woman’s pregnancy. To tell men that they have no voice because they do not have a uterus is simply ignoring the father’s role in creating the child. Yes, women definitely feel the pain and everything that entails pregnancy, but let us remember that without the man, she would never have such a situation. Society needs to stop with its double negative. If it wants to criticize the male population, call them to take responsibility and stop prohibiting men from doing so.

So now what? How can society rectify this? Break the cycle. Break the cycle of boyfriends forcing their girlfriends to have an abortion so they can escape the responsibility of raising their child. Break the cycle of fathers abandoning their families so that their boys will not grow up thinking it is ok to do the same thing. Break the cycle of society destroying the beauty and goodness of the family nucleus and the moral upbringing of children.

https://www.census.gov/library/stories/2019/11/the-two-extremes-of-fatherhood.html

https://www.fatherhood.org/father-absence-statistic

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3729671/

https://pediatrics.aappublications.org/content/138/1/e2

Image from: https://www.viacharacter.org/topics/articles/my-father-as-a-kaleidoscope-of-character-strengths

Where is the Father?

Making Abortion Illegal will Protect Women

Fear that banning abortion will force mothers to undergo unsafe abortions and will increase those death rates is unfounded.

20 June 2021

Annick Tankus                                                     

Recently the news is all about Texas banning abortions as early as six weeks and the Mississippi case that might overturn Roe vs. Wade. These are eventful landmarks in the history of Pro-Life and Abortion in the US. Many of the Pro-Abortion & Choice community are up in arms because they believe these policies will do nothing but make abortions unsafe and hurt more women. 

The Texas Heartbeat Act is not new as other states like Georgia have introduced and implemented other similar bills. However, the outcry against such legislation has been increasingly growing during this month. Angry Instagram stories of individuals and groups protesting such a bill saying that their “reproductive rights” are being violated as women do not even know they’re pregnant before 6 weeks. They claim that their basic healthcare is being taken away. 

What many do not realize is that abortions have never been safe. Whether these abortions were back alley or in a surgical room of Planned Parenthood, mothers face the possibility of death, lifelong health problems, and mental and spiritual effects. There are many who will deny these things and will proudly exclaim that they felt nothing, have no regret, and are perfectly healthy after receiving an abortion procedure, but that is not the case for many other women. To use the words of Sackin “even one woman’s death from abortion before it was legal is one too many” (Sackin quoted by Washington Post), and I would add that even when abortion is legal, one woman’s death is one too many.

Many Pro-Abortionists, especially those part of Planned Parenthood and NARAL, have frequently admitted that they had exaggerated their figures regarding the number of women dying from unsafe abortions. Dr. Bernard Nathanson is repeatedly used to exemplify this point. He states that:

How many deaths were we talking about when abortion was illegal? In NARAL [the National Abortion Rights Action League], we generally emphasized the frame of the individual case, not the mass statistics, but when we spoke of the latter it was always ‘5,000 to 10,000 deaths a year.’ I confess that I knew the figures were totally false, and I suppose the others did too if they stopped to think of it. But in the ‘morality’ of our revolution, it was a useful figure, widely accepted, so why go out of our way to correct it with honest statistics? The overriding concern was to get the laws eliminated, and anything within reason that had to be done was permissible. (Nathanson quoted by EWTN)

EWTN continues by reporting that Marian Faux makes a similar claim—”An image of tens of thousands of women being maimed or killed each year by illegal abortion was so persuasive a piece of propaganda that the [pro-abortion] movement could be forgiven its failure to double-check the facts.” And finally, the same Washington Post article admits that Sackin’s calculations of “as many as 5,000 annual deaths” did not have any citations to accurately prove that they were correct (Kessler).

Why are these abortion industries lying about their figures? Why not be truthful? The fact is that these people want women to believe that without them, they [the women] would die or be hurt. In their minds, women need abortion industries so that they don’t end up like the 1800s dropping dead from pregnancies. Whether these pregnancies of the past ended in natural childbirth deaths, nasty miscarriages, or harrowing back-alley abortions, women no longer have to fear these things because legalized abortions are so much safer. 

I must admit when I considered the whole legalize or not issue, I thought legalized abortions would keep women safer. After a careful examination, I realized I too had fallen into the same promise/lie that the abortion industries wanted women to believe. 

1). Illegalizing abortions would actually protect women should they find that Planned Parenthood or any other organization has wronged them. They can sue them for losses. Due to legalized abortions, it is much harder to confront these groups as they do have the backing of the law. Many Pro-abortion doctors and medical professionals would simply shrug off a woman’s complaint saying along the lines of “it’s done and over” or “you chose to go through with it” or “it’s not our problem anymore.” However, with laws partially illegalizing abortions like the Texas Heartbeat Bill or, in the future, those that fully illegalize abortions, mothers or family members can properly sue such agencies and actually stand a chance in court. 

2). Legalized abortions are not 100% safe as these organizations claim them to be. Many women suffer from long term affects due to surgeries or the pill. These include feeling nauseous, cramping, abdominal pain or even bleeding, damage to organs, and complications with future births (Foundations of Life). Mayo Clinic even admits that the woman may have vaginal bleeding or the risk of having to have more than one abortion should the first attempt fail. 

3).  Mary Steichen Calderone quoted by the Washington Post confirms that unsafe abortions are becoming safer due to many women who go to trained physicians “undercover.” The article also mentions that sulfa drugs and penicillin help keep abortions safer. Most of these drugs are already over the counter and are not deemed illegal. 

In summary, abortion can be illegalized without severe repercussions for the woman. The fear that illegalizing abortions will force the mothers to undergo unsafe abortions and will increase those death rates is unfounded. Because of the rise of modern medicine that can be purchased over counter, performing an illegal abortion or, at least, one not sanctioned by tax dollars would still be possible and have the same amount of safety as legalized abortions. Abortion should be illegal. Even though abortions would still occur illegally, as both sides know, it would still prevent the murder of millions. Do not be tricked by pro-choicers saying everyone who wanted an abortion would go through with it and do so in a way that would cost the mother’s life as well.

Sources:

https://www.ewtn.com/catholicism/library/big-lie-thousand-of-illegal-abortion-deaths-9596

https://www.mayoclinic.org/tests-procedures/medical-abortion/about/pac-20394687

https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/2019/05/29/planned-parenthoods-false-stat-thousands-women-died-every-year-before-roe/

Image from:

https://thetexan.news/governor-abbott-signs-texas-heartbeat-act-banning-abortions-after-detectable-pulse/

Making Abortion Illegal will Protect Women

Debunking Paxton Smith’s Valedictorian Speech

A response and examination of a spontaneous pro-choice speech.

12 June 2021

Maria D.

Debunking Paxton Smith’s Valedictorian Speech

Paxton Smith, a teenager and valedictorian, just graduated from Lake Highlands High in Dallas Texas. She finished at the top of her class. At graduation she was to speak about media, however, she decided to speak about something she deems an injustice. She finds Texas’ new laws in regards to abortion wrong. In summary, these rules make it difficult to murder your child. Once the heartbeat can be detected, the abortion is illegal (a great win for the pro-life movement and for the unborn). 

She and her speech have received great congratulations, with most of the comments on her Instagram posts calling her a queen and saying she is an inspiration. I do agree that she is an inspiration in one way: she spoke out against what she believes is wrong. It takes a lot of courage to do, and I respect her for it. However, I disagree with her speech and view on abortion. 

Let’s take a look at her speech:

“Starting in September, there will be a ban on abortions after six weeks of pregnancy, regardless of whether the pregnancy was a result of rape or incest.”

If a child is conceived through these morally wrong ways, it does not change the value of its life. A human with a criminal father is just as good as a human with a non criminal father. Adding to this, as we pro-lifers know, abortion is not good for women. It causes a lot of trouble for them- emotionally and physically. The trauma of rape combined with the trauma of being responsible for your child’s death would be a huge stress on the mother. 

 “Six weeks. That’s all women get. And so before they realize, most of them don’t realize that they’re pregnant by six weeks, so before they have a chance to decide if they are emotionally, physically, and financially stable enough to carry out a full term pregnancy, before they have the chance to decide if they can take on the responsibility of bringing another human being into the world, that decision is made for them by a stranger. A decision that will affect the rest of their lives is made by a stranger.”

First of all, she brings up being financially unstable to carry a baby. There are so many organizations that would help with this. Knights of Columbus, for example, raises money to fund sonograms for women. There are also a lot of groups that will advertise “help mom ‘k’ choose life” and collect money to help pay the mother’s bills. There are pregnancy resource centers that will also happily help. If you plan to put the child up for adoption, you can make arrangements with whoever wants to adopt it and have them pay for your medical bills. 

Second, how emotionally or physically ready you are is probably not something you’ll know during your pregnancy. It’s expected that you have a lot of emotional ups and downs. Your emotional stability, however, does not change the fact that there is a living human inside of you. Once you are pregnant, to put it frankly like Ben Shapiro, “Facts don’t care about your feelings.” The fact is that you are with child. You may feel stressed out, and rightfully so, but that does not justify killing a human. 

Third, she says “that decision is made for them by a stranger.” Did you know strangers also decided to make murdering a born person a crime? I don’t know who it was exactly that made the rule saying I can’t kill someone purposely on my way home from school and go unpunished, but I’m not upset about that. Sometimes strangers use logic and make good laws with it. 

“I have dreams and hopes and ambitions. Every girl graduating today does, and we have spent our entire lives working towards our future, and without our input and without our consent our control over that future has been stripped away from us. I am terrified that if my contraceptives fail, I am terrified that if I am raped, then my hopes and aspirations and dreams and efforts for my future will no longer matter.” 

A child does not ruin your dreams, hopes, or ambitions. It may alter them a little, but it won’t make all of your hard work worthless. Even if your goal in life is to be a single, successful businesswoman, you can still be that. You can keep your child and achieve all of your goals, or you can put it up for adoption and make a family very happy. 

Your control over the future should not require ending someone’s life. Imagine if you killed the person that gets on your nerves, just to make your life easier. That wouldn’t be right, morally or lawfully. 

It is so anti-woman to believe a child ruins ambitions. Women are amazing, right? Everyone should agree with this. So, because a woman has children, she can’t be successful? That doesn’t make sense. Aren’t working moms one of feminism’s highly honored positions?

Paxton (far right) is pictured with two of her band mates

“I hope you can feel how dehumanizing it is to have the autonomy over your own body taken away from you.”

I hope one day Paxton’s eyes are opened to how dehumanizing abortion is. After all, abortion (along with other massive injustices in history) dehumanizes living people. A fetus is a developing human like you and I, just much smaller, yet pro-choicers love to call them “clumps of cells.” 

Your control over your body should be just that- not control over the life inside of it. The other body is the one without control. While it is so small, it can be murdered. That isn’t letting it govern its own body, which is the whole concept of autonomy. 

Let’s talk about bodily autonomy. There are rights you should have in regards to your body. Some of these include getting piercings, tattoos, and deciding what you eat. It is all about having control over yourself. What pro-choicers miss is that there is another person in the picture. The law generally agrees that your rights end where another person’s rights begin. 

If it was her body, it would be her being aborted. She would have 20 digits (not 20 fingers as someone recently pointed out to me, saying thumbs are digits but not fingers), 20 toes, four arms, two brains, two hearts, and so on. Half of the time, she would have to be two separate genders at the same time. She would also have two different sets of DNA. There is so much proof the fetus/embryo is not its mother’s body. 

Lastly, abortion betrays women and women deserve better. 

Source of speech transcript: https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.rev.com/blog/transcripts/valedictorian-paxton-smith-abortion-rights-speech-transcript/amp

Image sources: https://www.instagram.com/p/Bly_dTUFb8P/?utm_medium=copy_link https://www.instagram.com/p/COYYe-6LCUr/?utm_medium=copy_link

Debunking Paxton Smith’s Valedictorian Speech

“Personally Pro-Life”

You may have heard the phrase, “I’m personally pro-life, but I don’t want to make that decision for somebody else.” Let’s talk about that stance.

5 June 2021

Grace Hartsock

As we all know, abortion is one of the most controversial human rights issues of our time. We meet many people who are strictly pro-life or pro-choice.  But what about the people on the fence? Have you ever talked to someone who is ‘personally pro-life’? You may have heard the phrase, “I’m personally pro-life, but I don’t want to make that decision for somebody else”.  

According to a 2015 poll, 39% of the American public don’t pick a side when it comes to abortion.  This position is extremely dangerous.  Either the pre-born are human people deserving of life, or they’re just a blob of tissue that can be simply removed at the mother’s whim.  Science shows that human life begins at conception, and there is no other scientific data that supports the idea that life begins at any other time.  In fact, 96% of liberal, pro-choice, and non-religious scientists agree that human life begins at conception.  

Even if you are ‘personally against abortion’, to be pro-choice about abortion is to be pro abortion. The only good reason for being ‘personally’ against abortion is that you know that the preborn is a human person, which gives you a moral obligation to preserve his life.  This is the only good reason for being against abortion, and it demands that we stand against those who choose to have an abortion for themselves.

There is no ‘even ground’ for this debate.  How can we say that someone is free to believe abortion is murder, but should not act as if that is true and stand up to save lives?  It’s simple – you are either pro-abortion or anti-abortion.  Speak for yourself, but I am against killing innocent people, no matter their age. 

A post by Live Action speaks on the personally prolife stance perfectly: 

In summary, it is impossible to be ‘personally pro-life’ and not take a stand against abortion.  

Citations:

https://www.vox.com/2018/2/2/16965240/abortion-decision-statistics-opinions

Image Sources:

“Personally Pro-Life”