Ricochet is the best place on the internet to discuss the issues of the day, either through commenting on posts or writing your own for our active and dynamic community in a fully moderated environment. In addition, the Ricochet Audio Network offers over 50 original podcasts with new episodes released every day.
Abortion: ‘Men’s Best Friend’
I’m borrowing my title from the punchline of Dennis Prager’s latest piece about Dobbs and the difference in sexual natures between men and women. Is it too late for a Spoiler Alert?
I confess, I’ve taken my eye off the ball of saving babies to revel in the feminist leftwing lunacy on display.
I mean, honestly, what’s not to LOL at singularly unattractive women threatening to forgo sexual intercourse? I suppose there are singularly unattractive men who will be disappointed… For about two weeks, max.
Does this mean “abstinence” is no longer a dirty word? You know, like when pro-lifers wanted it taught in sex-ed classes to their children (sidebar: public education shouldn’t be in the business of teaching about sex anyway! It already sucks at teaching reading, writing, and arithmetic)
And speaking of words, I think we need to define some terms:
- abstinence is refraining from doing something. Like some Catholics who refrain from eating meat on Fridays. So pro-aborts are threatening to abstain from intercourse unless they actually want to make a baby. Geeze, if only pro-lifers had thought of that.
- celibacy is when you refrain from sexual relations and you’re unmarried. So, rbecky69420, who posted, “I’m entering my celibacy era,” probably didn’t mean it. She’s probably already unmarried. Plenty of women who seek abortions are unmarried. They’re fornicators, but they’re “celibate.” Only roughly 15% of women who seek out abortion are married.
- chastity is a moral step up from all of the above and even married couples who have intercourse and are open to new life are “chaste.” Chastity is the (morally) proper use of one’s sexual faculties. For a celibate priest, that means abstaining from sexual activity of any kind. Sex within marriage has the purpose of both procreation and attaching husband and wife to each other. Particularly husbands to their wives and to the children they produce, when their sexual nature would have them spread their seed around. Which is why same-sex marriage is such a farce. There’s no chance of children being produced, so the attachment between the two men or two women isn’t all that consequential to society, even if it’s “nice” for the couple.
This is the Big Lie of feminism and the sexual revolution, generally. Men and women are different in their natures, sexual and otherwise. Abortion is poison for women (sometimes literally) and a huge gift to sexually irresponsible and predatory men.
Women can’t have consequence-free sex, either biologically or emotionally. Turns out, women are made to be mothers and, once they are, they need men to be supportive of them in that role. Which is why I find pro-abort activist men so icky, even if Meghan Markle thinks they need to “be more vocal.”
“These are decisions that affect relationships, families, and communities at large,”
I think I just said that, Meghan, you ignorant slut.
Abortion liberates men from taking responsibility for the women they impregnate. Duh. Women would be so much better off if we were cherished and supported for the gift Nature (and her God) has given us of mothering the next generation. And the men who do that? They need to be honored and appreciated, too.
Published in General
C.S. Lewis is wonderful.
@Western_Chauvinist, the picture you provided is hilarious!
A sex-strike was the basis of Lysistrata, a play by that rascally dead white male Aristophanes. In it, Athenian and Spartan women refuse to have sex with men unless they put an end to the Peloponnesian war. Part of the play’s humor is that some of the women found it difficult not to cross the picket line, so to speak. In the play, the strike works. I doubt the women in your picture would succeed.
We need a “marriage-strike.” In addition to chastity (the ultimate “best practice”) people should refuse to marry anyone who is or ever has been pro-abortion. And then they should have lots of children.
The Dobbs decision is a victory, but as long as 55% (or more) of Americans think abortion should be legal to some extent, nothing much will change. A marriage strike–I know this is a pipe-dream–would get the message across.
And it should result in larger families than pro-abortion couples will produce. We’ve waited 50 years for Dobbs: consider 50 years of pro-life couples having larger families while pro-abortion couples manage their measly 1.6 or whatever children per household. Assuming those larger pro-life families communicate their values to their children, in a generation or two the US will become a place where nearly everyone will be horrified at the idea of abortion. I like our odds.
Good for you for finding entertainment value in this stuff. Perhaps I would, too, if it weren’t so . . . dispiriting.
Ah, there’s the kicker!
“Oh Br’er Fox, please don’t throw me into that br’er patch!”
Sometimes it’s best to just point and laugh. Point and laugh, K.
What kills me is, it’s basically leftist thinking that makes all debt grow faster than GDP, which is largely solved by procreating more producers. Same thing with unfunded liabilities.
Then they live in a fantasy about central planning more immigration to make up for it.
The second the Soviet Union fell, everybody should have had a hard talk about all of this.
If you can’t make it work if you turn the power up to 11, you can’t make it work.
OMG! We can’t do business unless women can kill their babies!!
You can’t make this shtuff up.
Maybe they bank on sad women buying stuff, and women who kill their babies are the saddest?
She really does seem to be working hard to avoid saying “Women may be less inclined to casually allow men’s penises inside them, because it won’t everywhere be as easy and convenient as it once was to get an abortion for an accidental conception.”
No one wants to admit that the trade off with abortion was this: If it was made possible for women to easily kill their unborn children, and if women were willing to do that (or imagined they would be willing to do that) then women would no longer have to limit their potential sex partners to only men they could likely trust, regardless of who they found attractive, and make themselves responsible for choosing one from among that group after determining over time, and prior to having sex with him, if he was, in fact, trustworthy.
Nobody wants to admit that the seeming back-up of easy abortion made women more reckless than they ever would have naturally been about who they had sex with. It made them imagine that sex could safely come before, and/or be divorced from, relationship.
But I think that’s what the woman in the orange suit is verbally dancing around with all her “more equitable relationship” talk.
Or maybe she’s upset about the reduced chances of a man risking to get THAT pregnant.
Well, it is bad for her business. Guaranteed right to abortion is good for her business.
Maybe, 10 or 20 years from now, we’re going to be shocked by how creepy and evasive the people in something like this video look.
A somewhat complicated corollary to comment #42 by @ansonia above is that abortion is good for alpha men, and hurts men who are lower on the sexual status ladder.
As more women are willing to engage in unrestricted sexual activity, they go for men at the top of the sexual status ladder. So those men have access to a larger number of sexual playthings. That leaves men on the second or third rung down the sexual status ladder less able to attract the attention of even women on the second or third rung of the female status ladder, and less opportunity to form actual realistic relationships. And may partially explain why we seem to have this growing category of “incels” – men of low sexual status who are extremely frustrated by their inability to attract the attention of any women. The women are all busy letting themselves be used by the men at the top of the sexual status ladder.
That makes sense, very good sense, as an explanation of what’s going on.
I’m positive, with a decrease of easy abortion availability (and also with a growing societal perception of the unborn child as a person) you’re going to have an increase in a tendency among women for a woman to take a long, cold look at the evidence of the actual character of a man, and at the evidence of the real nature of his interest in her. What she sees in that look will much more often determine whether she gets sexually involved with the man. So less abortion availability would definitely level the playing field for wallflower men of good character and a deeper interest in a woman.
Now why don’t people like this woman in orange want to come out and just say this ?
They don’t want to come out and say this because saying this implies that the greatest effect abortion availability and acceptability has on women is that it enables them to be stupid, reckless, self deceiving and deluded about the men around them.
More than anything else, awareness of abortion availability caused women to either just not ask themselves certain questions about men they found attractive or lie to themselves about the answers they saw. It deadened what you might call “female forethink”, even though female forethink, as I’m calling it, is natural to women. That’s amazing yet obvious when you think about it.
Dennis Prager is one shrewd guy.
Not many women are actually being used by those top-status men, but they’re waiting to be used, and so are avoiding those on their same level.
They want to be freely available if a richer Mr Right Now looks in their direction.
Abortion on demand, as an easily-available option, is a godsend for the irresponsible, no matter which sex they are. Parsing the matter, threading the needle, pretending that it’s “women” only who benefit in the calculation is absurd.
Same-same, The Pill. To pretend that it introduced an era of free-for-all predatory sex only for women is ridiculous. I know some (at least one) men who’ve made careers of their “alphability” before drooling women only because they’ve been pretty sure that the women they’ve enticed, “rescued,” threatened, paid, and bought for sex were on The Pill and therefore, “safe.” (The howls of anguish and claims of “entrapment by womb” when they find that’s not the case are, IMHO, only evidence of the same.)
Men and women who engage irresponsibly and unaffectionately in the sex act without, at the back of their minds, the thought that they might be creating a third human life for which they might find themselves accountable, are beneath contempt.
That is all.
That [redacted] is one of the most despicable people in government.
EDIT:
About as Christian as Pete Buttiege.
Something like 86 % of abortions are done to kill the unborn children of unmarried women, according to something Anthony Esolen wrote today. So women aren’t just waiting to be used.
Doesn’t that show they ARE willing to be used, they just aren’t willing to deal with the occasional inevitable result?
And that 86% of abortions are by unmarried women, doesn’t mean that 86% of unmarried women have abortions. A small proportion of women – even unmarried women – might account for the great majority of abortions, but that doesn’t mean that women are going ahead and having unmarried/unprotected sex with less-than-top-status men while they wait for one to take interest in them.
Also, those top-status men might easily have a variety of women they’re dallying with. One top-status man “tying up” all those women – while all of them might hope/dream that eventually he’ll pick HER to be exclusive with – means that a number of non-top-status men have nobody at all to dally with.
It’s like the polygamy problem: if one rich man has 12 wives, that could mean that 11 other men have no wife at all.
I don’t think they’re beneath contempt anymore than slaveholders born into slavery were. They (men and women today) grew up with it in the back of their minds that if a conception occurred while they were playing around there was always abortion. Behavioral norms evolved (devolved) around the fact.
The thought at the back of people’s minds that their behavior together might create a third human life was largely driven out and supplanted by their awareness of the availability of abortion.
I’d love it if she had to explain in writing “Abortion is essential to racial justice.” and allow responses. That’s not a position in which she’ll ever be foolish enough to put herself, though, because she knows—-she must know—- about the disproportionate number of murdered unborn babies who are black and brown.
Yes. Of course that’s what it shows. Women are willing to be used or (more likely) to take the risk of being used because, they imagine, if the occasional inevitable result occurs they can get an abortion, or go through with the pregnancy, depending on how they feel about doing either.
No. I didn’t mean to say 86 percent of unmarried women have abortions. I meant 86 percent of abortions are done on unmarried women.
Exactly. But the problem with your stats is that they only deal with women who get abortions. So that could mean that if there were 100 abortions done in total, out of a million women, 86 of them were done on unmarried women. But it says nothing about the other 999,900 women. Even if they were all unmarried, it could mean none of them got pregnant, or it could mean the others that got pregnant opted for adoption, or kept the babies themselves… or later GOT married…
I haven’t listened to this yet.
https://ricochet.com/podcast/federalist-radio-hour/the-dobbs-victory-is-more-fragile-than-many-realize/
Who needs abortion tents in national parks?
https://abcnews.go.com/Health/wireStory/floating-abortion-clinic-proposed-gulf-bypass-bans-86572309