So apparently “male abortion” is a thing, and although Julia Tourianski pretty well summarized what’s stupid and what’s smart about it, I found cause to leave a comment:
This is a good start. I’d go 18 steps further and say at the 0th week a man has no legal responsibility. Or better still, a man should be compelled to marry a girl just for humbling her, regardless of whether or not a pregnancy occurs, and he should not be allowed to divorce her, ever.
These points may appear to contradict each other. Allow me to elaborate.
In the socialist bizzaro world of the west, laws are focused primarily on their benefit to women; even to the detriment of men. Suppose a man knocks a girl up, and she decides not to have the baby murdered. Suppose still that she will not submit to him, but instead goes on as a single mother. He is compelled to make not just one payment but reoccurring payments, and not to the girl’s father but the girl herself. He’s not compelled to marry her, but should he decide to propose and should she feel inclined to accept, she can leave with half of his wealth at any time. This world is filled with moral hazards, and detriments abound: the father is out a daughter, i the should-have-been-a-husband is out an open-ended amount of money, the mother is out a decent husband, ii the child is out a mother and iii father, and society as a whole is out a well-ordered family.
In a sane society, law exists primarily to the benefit of men, and for the purpose of making evil known; iv that women can also benefit is a secondary consideration, like how laws against cattle rustling may happen to benefit cattle. v To get back to the apparent contradiction, a man should have no legal responsibility for any children he fathers, but instead be compelled to marry any girl he takes sexually. She may choose to flee from him, vi but she does so alone and with no benefit provided by law. The idea being that if she’s going to stick him with the cost of raising her child, she’s gotta do as he says. In this case there are benefits all around: for the father who gets a son-in-law, for the husband who gets to raise his own child, for the mother who gets a husband, for the child who gets a mother and a father, and even for society as a whole which gets a well ordered family rather than a chaotic mess.
- She wasn’t his anyway, even though he was forced to pay for raising her. And he ‘loses’ her in that she is now damaged goods, and consequently less likely to attract a decent son-in-law. ^
- She instead gets to basically marry the government that enables this whole mess. This is why women are much more likely to endorse socialism; they are doing what any good wife should do: fiercely defend her husband. ^
- Yes! Mother and. Who is supposed to raise the kid when everyone has to go out and work all the time? ^
- Romans 7:
7 What shall we say then? Is the law sin? Certainly not! On the contrary, I would not have known sin except through the law. For I would not have known covetousness unless the law had said, “You shall not covet.” 8 But sin, taking opportunity by the commandment, produced in me all manner of evil desire. For apart from the law sin was dead. 9 I was alive once without the law, but when the commandment came, sin revived and I died. 10 And the commandment, which was to bring life, I found to bring death. 11 For sin, taking occasion by the commandment, deceived me, and by it killed me. 12 Therefore the law is holy, and the commandment holy and just and good.
- It doesn’t go much further than a consideration. Both cattle and girls probably don’t care which master rounds them up, and should we bother to ask, it wouldn’t be for the purpose of crafting laws, but for the purpose of making foreplay. ^
- I’m not necessarily in favor of binding her up against her will ^