Liberal Stupidity on Abortion

equal_rights_for_all_special_treatment_for_noneThere are reasons that I really avoid a couple of debate subjects, like abortion and racism, because the second you make any statements, no matter how mild, the whining liberals are out in force trying to make you seem like a hate-monger.  This is really why I utterly hate the whole radical feminist nonsense, because they’re not reasonable, rational people, they’re fanatics.

Unfortunately, I fell into this again when someone on a forum posed a simple question.  Given that abortion is legal and the sole prerogative of the woman, should men be given an equal chance to end their financial and social obligations on a pregnancy?  I answered that of c0urse they should, if we’re going for equality, if a woman has an “out” on an unwanted pregnancy, it is only fair for a man to similarly get an “out” on an unwanted pregnancy.  It’s equal.  It’s fair.  That’s what we’re supposed to be going for.

But no, the whining self-identified liberals and progressives are out in force.  They don’t give a damn about equality.  It’s not even in their playbook.  We see this among the Atheism+ assholes who are fanatically pro-woman and fanatically anti-man.  Of course, it’s not just them, it’s the whole radical feminist movement and that takes up a lot of modern liberal thought.

So anyhow, I make some very simple comments that everyone ought to be equal and if you’re going to give rights to one side, you have to give equivalent rights to the other.  I never once suggested taking away anyone’s rights.  It was always framed as equality.  And then the liberal assholes came out of the woodwork.

Nope, no equality for men.  Women have an absolute right to have an abortion if they want it, but if they choose not to have an abortion, then men have no choice whatsoever but to spend 18 years paying for an unwanted pregnancy.  Women have rights.  Men have none.  So lots of people start saying how unfair that is and the liberals start claiming that we all want to take away abortion rights from women!  Surely, calling for equality means that we want to eliminate rights!  What a bunch of idiots.

Isn’t this how it’s supposed to be? Not according to liberals.

But wait, it gets better!  The liberals started arguing that if a man wants the same rights, he can get an abortion! Seriously!  When I pointed out how perilously close that was to the far-right claim that gays who want equal rights can just marry people of the opposite sex, they called me a gay-hater.

I honestly do not get how my liberal readers can possibly stand up and side with these morons.  Seriously, justify being able to stomach standing alongside these cocksuckers.  You scream and cry about how horrible the religious right is, how gays deserve equality, when there are people on  your own side  that are pulling this kind of stupidity?  You ought to be ashamed of them and you ought to be ashamed of yourselves for not telling them where to shove their stupidity.

It just makes me sick to see this kind of  ridiculous doubletalk and blatant hypocrisy.  Worse yet is their complete inability to recognize that they’re being ridiculously hypocritcal.  It’s pointed out to them, time and time again and they cannot understand the concept of equality or equivalent rights.  The second you suggest an equivalent right for men, they act like you’re taking rights away from women.

So, since I don’t dare open my mouth and suggest actual equality for all, I’ll go ahead and make my suggestion for actual equality for both sides here.  Yeah, I don’t expect anyone to like it, but what can you expect?

A woman finds out she’s pregnant.  She knows who the father is.  If she decides she’s going to keep it, she has to inform the father before she reaches a certain point in the pregnancy.  Yes, I know that some women don’t realize they’re pregnant until later, but that’s a relatively rare thing so we’ll leave that to be worked out in those rare cases.  I’m not even going to say what that time is, it’s a detail, not a part of the real plan.  Once the father has been informed, he has a certain amount of time to decide if he wants to take financial responsibility for the upcoming infant.  If he does, fine, everything proceeds as normal.  If not though, he files a legal form, provides a certain amount of money, typically I’d suggest an amount to cover the cost of an abortion, and he is freed from any and all financial liability for the child.  Then the woman can make her decision, knowing that she is going to be solely financially responsible for the child, whether to use the money for an abortion or not.  Regardless, she has no legal recourse to force the father to have anything to do with the child, nor is he able to have anything to do with the child until the child is 18 years old.  He is not recorded on the birth certificate, although I think some record should be made in the event of a serious medical emergency where he might need to be contacted.  And then… that’s it.  He’s no longer the legal father, she’s 100% responsible.

But wait, I hear lots of liberals whine, what if she can’t afford to do it on her own?  That’s her problem, isn’t it?  She needs to be responsible for her own actions and her own decisions.  If she can’t afford to take care of it, then have an abortion or give it up for adoption.  I know responsibility is a bad word in liberal circles, but this demonstrates a dearth of irresponsibility from all concerned parties.  If these two morons were responsible, they wouldn’t be in bed together without being in a serious, long-term relationship to begin with.  They would have decided beforehand if they wanted a pregnancy to occur and if one did, what their response would be to it.  It should all be worked out ahead of time.  But no, people are stupid and liberals are happy to have stupid people on their side. Their entire political and social philosophy depends on stupidity and irresponsibility.

That’s kind of the whole problem with liberalism.

15 thoughts on “Liberal Stupidity on Abortion”

  1. Cephus this is something I have not though about so thanks for making me think. I suppose the biggest issue for me is that abortion for womene is still not easy to obtain in some countries, so thats why I have not thought about it.

    I have to say I cant see any holes in you argument, and they only reason that it makes me uneasy is because I would expect a child to know both their parents so its a emotional response and not a rational one. I will be giving this post a lot more thought, but I must say at present I have to agree with you as there is no rational counter argument to be made.
    My recent post Idiot of the week (Saeed Abedini)

  2. It's definitely an interesting situation, the guy wants the girl to have an abortion and she doesn't want to. Currently, he's just screwed, unless he can convince her to have the abortion he has to pay for the kid he doesn't want for 18 years. That is shitty. This proposal is that the guy can opt out, and knowing that the girl can either get the abortion or have the kid and go it alone. It sounds harsh, but I think it is important to remember we are trying to have the least bad outcome in a shitty situation. On the surface, this seems like a pretty fair arrangement to me. Honestly though, I haven't thought about it much so I'm open to an argument against it.

    My recent post Highlights

    1. The problem is, this ends up being a very back-ended feminist argument. Ostensibly, they claim that if the man doesn't pay for it, then the taxpayers will have to foot the bill, but doesn't that automatically assume that the woman is incapable of taking care of herself or being responsible? Besides, these are liberals who clearly don't care about the taxpayers anyhow or they wouldn't push so many taxpayer-funded social programs. In reality, it's a case where a woman has a man by the balls and they're completely in favor of that. Modern feminism, especially third-wave feminism, isn't about making women equal to men, it's about making them superior.

  3. I said I would be back 🙂

    Regarding the abortion issue I think that for the actual abortion the women should hold the choice whether to carry or abort the child. My rational is that she has to live with the consequences either way, as pregnancy and abortion both hold risks.

    This is now why I can firmly agree with your opinion that the man should have a choice if he wants to support the child or not later in life. If the male cannot have a choice whether the female has an abortion (which he shouldn't as I pointed out) then he should have an "escape" clause. This way both persons rights are protected.

    BTW I used "escape" as I couldn't think of a better word.
    My recent post Can creationists be scientists?

    1. I agree. Her body, her decision, although I really have no respect for a woman who gets into that situation without being in a relationship where she would consult the man or not have talked about the possibilities before engaging in the act. The whole idea that she doesn't care what her partner wants really demonstrates that both people involved are irresponsible and in all honesty, neither of them deserves to be a parent in the first place. Nobody has suggested anywhere that the man ought to be able to force her not to have an abortion, but if he can't force her to do do that, she shouldn't be able to force him to support the child either. Equality works both ways.

    2. It is not equal. The man gets to escape Scott free without having to go through the trauma of having an abortion, while the woman either has to assume responsibility or under go the trauma of abortion. Under no circumstances is the man expected to provide for the child alone. How is this equality?

      1. There is this thing called consequences. I know liberals don't like it but that's how reality works. Those consequences may be uncomfortable but that's life. Given a choice between giving birth to a child and keeping it for 18 years, giving birth and giving it up for adoption or having an abortion, those are the choices that a woman who is pregnant has. If she doesn't want the child, she goes down to the last two options. If she wants to end the pregnancy, she goes down to the last one. That's reality. Reality isn't touchy-feely wonderful, whether you like it or not. The only way to avoid these options is not to get pregnant at all. Except in cases of rape, all sexual activity is voluntary. All forms of birth control, with the exception of sterilization, have a risk of failure and people engaging in voluntary sex have to understand that risk and the potential consequences of their actions. This goes for both men and women. We have to deal with the biological realities as they actually exist. I've heard some idiot feminists saying that biology is sexist. They are morons. Reality is what reality is, it doesn't have to cater to your silly ideologies. But the law has to be equal and if you're going to give women an escape clause from an unwanted pregnancy, you have to give men an equivalent clause. What goes for one must go for the other.

        I've advocated for men who want to sign away their parental and financial responsibilities, must pay a certain amount of money to the woman that covers the cost of an abortion and then some and it is then up to the woman what to do with it, knowing full well that she's on her own. She can choose to have an abortion, with the cost of the abortion and perhaps some psychological counseling covered. She can choose to have the child and give it up for abortion, with the cost of the birth also covered. She can decide to keep the child and raise it on her own, with the cost of the childbirth covered. It's up to her, it's her body. Whether she likes any of the currently available options is entirely irrelevant. You have to live in the reality we actually have, not the one you wish we did.

        1. "You have to live in the reality we actually have, not the one you wish we did."

          You are the one advocating changing the law. How am I trying to escape reality? I think your policy would increase single parent families even more. Where is the social responsibility your version of conservationism is supposed to be about?

          1. People who have sex outside of marriage are the ones increasing single parent families. And they are the ones who are going to have the majority of abortions. And they are the ones who are going to want to rescind their parental responsibility. Married couples rarely operate that way.

          2. "People who have sex outside of marriage are the ones increasing single parent families. And they are the ones who are going to have the majority of abortions. And they are the ones who are going to want to rescind their parental responsibility. Married couples rarely operate that way."

            Obviously. And policies incentivize the way people behave. Why are we stating the obvious here?

          3. No, it's the way people behave that are causing the problems in the first place. It goes back to liberal positions coming out of the 60s. If it feels good, do it. Who cares about responsibility? It you want a kid and don't want to deal with all of the stuff that goes along with it, just fine a sperm donor. It's resulted in the breakdown of the nuclear family.. It's resulted in a skyrocketing divorce rate. It has resulted in an absurdly high rate of out-of-wedlock births, especially in minority communities. It sure isn't conservatism that has brought us any of that.

  4. You may find it odd that I identify as a liberal, but I find this idea reasonable. I think that if women didn’t have the near guarantee of child support for 18+ years, you would see a lot fewer unwanted pregnancies, and hopefully fewer abortions. My wife is a staunch pro-lifer, and I am not, but we would both like abortions to be rare. I think that this would be sound policy.

    1. I'd like abortions to be rare too, not because people are discouraged from having them, but because people are responsible enough not to need them except in extreme circumstances. It's unfortunate that this overall responsibility is a rarity in the modern world. I've also made the point that "liberal" and "conservative" are both very broad and potentially useless labels because two people who subscribe to those labels may have entirely different views on any single issue. I just don't know of a better label to use that's as equally well understood though.

  5. Somehow in your scenario you never factored in that men never have to go through the trauma of pregnancy, birth, or abortion; yet you think you have somehow put the sexes on equal footing. You also didn't factor in the negative consequences of single parent families. I hope you still don't stand by this nonsense.

    1. Someone's emotional state is irrelevant to the law. And yes, I agree that single parent families suck, but tell that to people who are out whoring around, both men and women, creating tons of children out of wedlock. Seriously, for these ridiculously irresponsible idiots, do you want either of them being parents at all? Do you want either of them raising the next generation of irresponsible people? I know I certainly don't.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Optionally add an image (JPG only)