Three Reasons Why the Pro-Choice Position Appeals to Cowardly Men

1. For the pro-choicer, the issue of abortion is primarily about women’s rights. For the pro-lifer, it’s primarily about the rights of the unborn. A cowardly man will always defer to the former, for the simple reason that he will never be personally confronted by the unborn. He will accept the narrative that entails the least personal risk to himself. Cowardly men would rather turn a blind eye to injustices against the voiceless than risk offending those-who-have-voices. 

The cowardly man need only convey an acceptable combination of faux-humility and faux-generosity when delivering the line, “I support a woman’s right to choose.” With one stroke, he dehumanizes the unborn child and asserts his support for the fairer sex.

2. Those who support legalized abortion often cite social and economic factors – essentially making a utility argument: “Better for a child to be aborted than born into a life of poverty and crime.”

Pardon my frankness, but utilitarians are pansies. Cowardly men are enamored with this kind of thinking, because it avoids the awkwardness of standing up for the weak against the interests of “the rest of us”. It allows Principles to be compromised in order to ensure “more total happiness for everyone”. Better the Lower Classes kill off their unborn, rather than jeopardize society’s physical and financial security.

Some cowardly men will even argue that it’s “in the child’s own best interests” to be aborted. Which seems awfully presumptuous. In that case…why not just kill all infants, toddlers, and schoolchildren who are born into lives of poverty and crime?

3. Abortion doesn’t only impact women. In the aftermath of the recent controversy surrounding the 20-week abortion ban in Texas, the term “bro-choice” gained a good deal of traction on social media sites. It turns out that banning abortion would cramp the style of cowardly men looking for consequence-free sex. According to bro-choice activist Ben Sherman, “[your] sex life is at stake…don’t be surprised if casual sex outside of relationships becomes far more difficult to come by.”

Cowardly men dread the thought of being held accountable for what they do sexually. Primarily concerned with their own hedonistic goals, they naturally favor policies that make it easier to coerce pregnant women into dismembering their unborn offspring. Collateral damage is acceptable, so long as it doesn’t interfere with the cowardly man’s own selfish interests.

Advertisements

21 thoughts on “Three Reasons Why the Pro-Choice Position Appeals to Cowardly Men

  1. Abrasive, but accurate! Real men parent their children and love their mother — for a lifetime. Of course we need to address the women who say that men should have no say or position on this issue.

  2. When you said “the cowardly man’s own selfish interests” you said a lot, just like bro-choice it has nothing to do with women’s rights. The guys you are describing like abortion because it protects them from accepting responsibility for what they did to the woman.

  3. Pingback: Flotsam & Jetsam (7/30) | the Ink Slinger

  4. Pingback: Nunc Cognosco Ex Parte 3 | Garner Goings On

  5. Matt, I thought you might find this video interesting…and the words are written below as well…regarding a prayer for abortion. I am sure you won’t be shocked, but it prays for protection for the doctors performing abortions, not the babies. It praises the fact that the goddess to whom the woman is praying allows for abortion. What if she were aborted when she was a baby? Would she be happy that her medical rights weren’t protected? Anyway, you can see for yourself. http://www.ijreview.com/2013/08/76250-video-iowa-union-official-prays-to-female-lord-of-the-dance-giving-thanks-for-abortion/

  6. Tarry a little….there is something else! What if – and cases like this DO occur – if you’re confronted with a choice between letting both mother AND foetus die, or else intervening to save the mother, if it is medically certain that without such two deaths will result? The classic instance is the ectopic pregnancy, where the fertilised egg implants in the Fallopian tube. In such a case, death for both is a certainty if the doctor doesn’t intervene.

    • The large majority of pro-lifers (myself included) believe that abortion should be legally permissible if the mother’s life is in serious danger.

  7. Call me a coward then. Hypothetical: In a hospital a person requires a donation of blood from you or they will die. Does the state have a right to force you to give that donation? I think you should certainly give the donation, however such questions ought to lay beyond the scope of the state. Only women make babies, the womb is not state property. We do not commandeer men’s bodies for the benefit of others, the same must apply to women. The line between pregnancy and birth may seem arbitrary, but it isn’t, You must trust people to make the right decisions. I’d rather cut a conscious human life short than subbordinate the interests of a member of our society (who created this life) to one who isn’t even born yet.

    • I recommend reading this article: http://www.str.org/articles/unstringing-the-violinist

      It addresses your main concern pretty well, I think.

      You say: “I’d rather cut a conscious human life short than subbordinate the interests of a member of our society (who created this life) to one who isn’t even born yet.”

      Yet isn’t that exactly what we do with infants and toddlers? To quote Matt Walsh:

      “An unborn human totally relies on its mother, this is true. But so does a born human for the first several years of its life (or the first several decades, in some cases). An infant is more demanding, more restricting, and more expensive than a “fetus.” It requires more resources, more attention and more time. A mother is REQUIRED BY LAW to provide everything that child needs, or else make other arrangements for it. If the “other arrangements” include euthanizing it, she will face criminal penalties. A baby needs its mothers milk (milk that comes from her body), if the mother chooses not to feed him this way, or is unable to, she must feed him formula. Buying formula every week can be a huge financial strain, but it is one the parents must assume. Not feeding him is not a legal option. A “fetus” needs your body, a baby needs your entire life. You must give your body to a “fetus,” you must give your entire existence to a baby. Why does the former come with an escape hatch but not the latter?

      Why do we FORCE parents to care for their children? Well, because we are a civilized society, and that is their obligation. Can you think of one solid, consistent, salient, moral or intellectual reason why a “fetus” can be exterminated because of the demands it makes on is mother, but a newborn infant, who makes even more taxing and cumbersome demands, can’t be?”

    • The state enforces certain standards of morality all the time. We protect people from having things stolen from them. We try to protect people from being murdered, and punish people that commit murder. Even the Declaration of Independence states that we have a right to life. It is perfectly natural for someone to want to stand up for the life of the unborn. People that have already been born should appreciate that they have that right. Comparing abortion to donating blood? Really? People that consent to have sex should understand that there are natural consequences to having sex. The pro-choice people do not understand what the word responsibility means. The unborn child is not a part of a woman’s body. It has its own organs, DNA and its own blood supply. people that say it’s a woman’s body should take a biology class. even a little child can understand its a separate life. The taking of a separate life is called premeditated murder. the state should not allow such things to happen.

    • The state has the right to protect people from premeditated murder. Someone with a heartbeat, own blood type, own DNA, own organs, etc. is a person. You can twist those facts any way you like, trying to support what you want.

  8. This article is true, but doesn’t go nearly far enough with the truth. A “pro choice” man is not supporting women’s rights at all. A man may use a woman for sex and when the completely normal result of that reproduction produces a child, he doesn’t want to support that woman or that child. That is the ultimate example of a deadbeat dad. Because it takes a step further than refusing support, he is willing to take it all the way to death. And not just the death of the unborn. Many women feel depression and deep regret. They will either live with this, or in some cases commit suicide. A pro life man wants to save the life of the unborn and the life of the woman. most pro life men are compassionate to women that have already had abortions, and support them with counseling and other supports.

    • Its important to point out at the pro choice man masquarades as a person that is standing up for women’s rights. He cons the women to believe this at the same time that he is getting what HE wants. He doesn’t want to take responsibility for the natural result of sex. He is willing for the baby to die so that he will not be burdened by it, perhaps escape a relationship with a woman, he is willing for woman to feel depression and willing for her to possibly commit suicide as a result of it all.

Comments are closed.