A sight you’d likely see more of if conservatives have their way with their proposed pro-natalist policies.
1,218 words
A common liberal argument against the pro-life movement is that it’s not truly pro-life. In the liberal imagination, “pro-life” means being for more government assistance and universal healthcare. Liberals claim conservatives want to punish single moms by forcing them to have children without any resources to raise them. A true pro-life society would ensure these women got all the help they allegedly need.
Many pro-life conservatives respond to this argument with full-hearted agreement. They believe the government needs to provide more welfare to helpless moms in a world without abortion. While a noble idea in theory, it would just lead to the government subsidizing demographic replacement and dysgenics. Contemporary America isn’t capable of developing a natalist policy that would boost birthrates among the people who are not having kids (namely, whites) and increase family formation. It would more likely accelerate current demographic issues.
Conservatives don’t seem to mind this prospect. Last weekend, The New York Times published an article by conservative policy analyst Patrick Brown. In it, Brown shared his pro-family vision in an America free of Roe v. Wade. It’s not the ideal natalist policy, to say the least. Brown claims there is a “realignment” going on and that Republicans must embrace the welfare state to avoid electoral defeats, especially in light of a nation where abortion will no longer be legal in every state:
Some Republicans who were elected on anti-abortion rhetoric might find themselves politically vulnerable — unless they lean into the ongoing political realignment and put themselves on the side of working-class parents. The end of Roe will mean that pro-family rhetoric will need to be backed up with policy proposals that match. . . . An authentically pro-life, pro-family approach must take seriously the challenges that women and families experience not only during and immediately after pregnancy but also in the years that follow.
You Can buy F. Roger Devlin’s Sexual Utopia in Power here.
What does that policy actually look like? His first suggestion is to provide more resources to “low-income and working-class women” facing “unexpected pregnancies.” Translation: We need to increase government assistance to non-white single mothers. Other ideas include more money for government programs designed to help low-income minorities and which mandate paid parental leave. Brown claims these ideas would encourage more single-earner families — without using the word family in that paragraph. He also argues that Republicans should expand child tax credits and tie them to work, which is probably the best idea the author suggests. Other suggestions include benign proposals to back programs to train more medical professionals and provide more childcare facilities.
On the surface, the article’s policy plan isn’t that bad — until you realize what’s missing. The word “father” is never mentioned in the article. “Marriage” is only mentioned once, and only in the context of helping “low-income” parents. For a supposedly “pro-family” policy, this agenda seems remarkably unconcerned with promoting family formation. It just rewards present demographic trends.
But at least Brown’s column lives in the real world. The other conservative pro-life, pro-welfare article published by the Times exists in another dimension. Catholic contrarian Matthew Walther argues in his op-ed that abortion will make America poorer, dumber, and more violent. He argues this is a good thing:
Research over the years has suggested that an America without abortion would mean more single mothers and more births to teenage mothers, increased strain on Medicaid and other welfare programs, higher crime rates, a less dynamic and flexible work force, an uptick in carbon emissions, lower student test scores and goodness knows what else. If you sincerely believe, as I do, that every abortion means the deliberate killing of an innocent human being, is there some hypothetical threshold for negative growth, carbon dioxide levels or work force participation rates beyond which the protection of that life would be too burdensome?
For me, the answer is no.
Even though Walther predicts that abortion bans will crater the economy and lead to a dysgenic future, he believes the only proper answer is to expand the welfare state:
[O]pponents of abortion should commit ourselves to the most generous and humane provisions for mothers and children (paid family leave, generous child benefits, direct income subsidies for stay-at-home mothers, single-payer health care) without being Pollyannaish.
In summary, Walther has no problem with an abortion ban turning America into Venezuela. At least we will have a welfare state that can provide all these amenities — don’t ask how — in our new favela nation.
These arguments undermine the notion that an abortion-free America would lead to stronger families and a general return to tradition. In reality, it would just accelerate current demographic woes and lead to more children being raised by single moms. It also probably wouldn’t boost the birthrate of the white middle class. As abortion statistics show, the vast majority of people who get abortions are poor and non-white.
These are just a few examples of conservatism’s current infatuation with “pro-family” policies. Essentially, none of the conservatives’ ideas addresses the core problem of encouraging middle-class whites to form families at an earlier age and to have more children. They are usually concerned with other matters. Sometimes, these ideas are goofy but harmless, such as heavily taxing porn in order to subsidize children with severe disabilities. Other ideas would actually hinder the white middle class from having kids.
A popular pro-life idea is banning in-vitro fertilization (IVF). They view IVF as an abomination and want it restricted. IVF is one of the few options available to intelligent whites who delay having children. In a perfect world, they would have had children at an age when they would not have had to worry about fertility issues — but we don’t live in that world. Restricting fertility treatment to protect fetuses would only ensure that middle-class whites have fewer kids. The nature of our economy and society are not going to suddenly change after an abortion ban. Professional strivers will still delay having children, believing they can just wait until their 30s to do so. Thankfully, due to IVF and other practices, they’re still able to reproduce, but in a world without these options, they would just end up childless. Maybe they could adopt Shaniqua’s kids instead . . .
It’s worth reiterating the point that abortion is not a central issue for identitarians. Our guys can take either side on the matter, and it doesn’t serve as a litmus test. We should take note, however. when one side seems eager about the dysgenic prospects of a full-on abortion ban and promotes “family” policies that would accelerate our people’s demographic decline. That’s not something we can support.
The hard truth is that America can’t emulate Hungary’s natalist policies — at least, not in the way identitarians wish it would be done. America’s current ideology is best represented by Black Lives Matter. Our population is only 57% white today. Any natalist policy would appeal to the interests of non-white interest groups and not be directed at whites. It’s unthinkable for America as it exists today to pass “pro-family” policies that would actually benefit our people. The ideological structure and demographic trends of our nation weigh against it.
It’s smarter for us to oppose these handouts that will primarily go to minorities and be denied to us. A real pro-family policy doesn’t promote dysgenics.
* * *
Counter-Currents has extended special privileges to those who donate $120 or more per year.
- First, donor comments will appear immediately instead of waiting in a moderation queue. (People who abuse this privilege will lose it.)
- Second, donors will have immediate access to all Counter-Currents posts. Non-donors will find that one post a day, five posts a week will be behind a “paywall” and will be available to the general public after 30 days.
To get full access to all content behind the paywall, sign up here:
Paywall Gift Subscriptions
If you are already behind the paywall and want to share the benefits, Counter-Currents also offers paywall gift subscriptions. We need just five things from you:
- your payment
- the recipient’s name
- the recipient’s email address
- your name
- your email address
To register, just fill out this form and we will walk you through the payment and registration process. There are a number of different payment options.
29 comments
Excellent piece, Mr. Hampton.
I’m anti-abortion on an individual level, but if you think about who has most abortions, these women are mainly minorities and almost all are irresponsible.
And the foolish left who thinks these pro-life policies are racist, puh-lease. If anything, they are lame Republican attempts to look anti-racist.
I’m in full agreement, Edmund. Abortion is a toxic issue that could hurt us with Republican voters, but this is a devastating policy, and there’s no choice but to come down on one side. The extraordinary admission from Walther says it all.
Nice work on both articles, Robert. How predictable that the GOP’s great victory of the 21st century accelerates the destruction of our people. They refuse to take a penny out of the federal budget to build a border wall while paving the way for 600,000 non-white Democratic voters to be welcomed to America annually.
Really sharp and astute dissection of the attendant issues. Of course we arrive again at the conclusion that there isn’t a perfect solution…you just can’t win! But of course you can, if you recognize that abortion is a fake problem, a proxy issue, one that gets ginned up as a distraction from substantive matters. All of the weaknesses of pro-natalism go away if you just put the racial/social question front-and-center.
Unfortunately pro-natalist pleadings usually make appeals to traditional morality and Christian Doctrine—not because such arguments are watertight; for the most part they’re not; but rather because people are easily buffaloed by ethical and moral questions. And of course it’s a cheap ‘n’ easy way to get “conservative” funds and votes.
This essay is a good example of how ‘liberal’, ‘illiberal’, ‘conservative’ etc are useless for pro-White politics. They’re a dead language to us that we are forced to use to communicate with the political corpse that is current politics, but it’s detrimental to clear thinking about our issues. Excellent essay, Robert.
In-vitro fertilization itself has many problems, and is very much dysgenic. The Jolly Heretic, Mr. Edward Dutton has exlained it quite well.
Very sound essay, Hampton. Well done.
Seeing as how this issue is being continued as a discussion topic at CC, I repost again the relevant portions of a long comment I wrote a week ago (which covers how I think we should be thinking about Roe‘s likely repeal, and which contains much of what Hampton says above):
I have long held that pro-life is basically a cult (or, for the non-religious, a cult within a cult). I used to have occasional interactions with pro-lifers during my years working for the GOP and various candidates. As you might expect, most of these were wonderful people, real salt of the earth (and always white, in my experience). But there was, even 30 years ago, a very pronounced liberal tinge to the way they discussed the issue. I once got annoyed with a bunch of them, … and, when asked my position by one of them, rather ostentatiously said I was “anti-abortion, not pro-life” (… my real position – pro-life for whites, pro-choice for nonwhites and white leftists). When they asked what the difference was, I explained that pragmatically there was none, but I phrased it the way I did to emphasize that I was a “moral authoritarian” as opposed to someone who passionately cared about individual foeti. I further stated that emphasizing “protecting [unborn] life” instead of upholding moral norms started one down a slippery rhetorical slope whereby one finds it increasingly easier to bypass conservative strictures in the name of “maximizing life”. If one is “pro-life” ahead of all other principles, how can one deny generous welfare benefits to single mothers; expensive [taxpayer-provided] neo- and post-natal care; an ever expanding medical welfare state; or indeed, how can one support capital punishment or the occasional necessities of military power projection and international warfare?
As it turns out, all those left-liberal positions have variously come to be embraced by extensive elements within the prolife community. Calling oneself “anti-abortion”, OTOH, highlights one’s ideological opposition to the allowance of pre-born “infanticide”, as well as one’s upholding of traditional (Western) moral values, without committing oneself to a set of ever-expanding policies which ultimately rob whites, and weaken white and Western power.
Hampton (and now Johnson) is right that abortion is not our fight, nor is it an important fight. Even among white female abortion clients, how many hail from our more dysgenic elements? … I’m not sure what abortion demographics were in the immediate aftermath of Roe … , but for many decades now abortion has been overwhelmingly a lower class phenomenon (and disproportionately a nonwhite and especially black one, too, as Hampton points out). Indeed, … how many white females obtaining abortions are actually aborting pure white children? A lot of underclass whites (since the 90s, if not earlier) are also miscegenators, and among poor whites who disdain miscegenation, you will find many who are Christians (or plain rustics with traditionalist outlooks) who disdain abortion, too. Does anyone have data on how many pure white children in America are aborted annually? I bet it is a smallish minority of the total number of abortions.
Constitutionally, repealing Roe is the right position. It was blatantly unconstitutional. The Constitution says nothing about abortion, and the states had various policies on this in place at the time of its ratification. If the Framers had wished to make unrestricted abortion on demand a superordinate Federal right, they could have enacted an amendment to the Constitution to that effect at the same time as the others that comprise the Bill of Rights. That they did not leads us necessarily to conclude that they did not consider abortion to be a Constitutional matter; they were content to leave abortion policy to be variously shaped by the several states. Thus, the Roe Court, in claiming that the Framers really intended their Constitution to outlaw any restrictions on abortion access at any level of jurisdiction, is prima facie ludicrous. And reading the case one quickly discovers that, despite its length and enormous mass of (juridically extraneous) historical detail, its author, Justice Blackmun, never actually offers any serious attempt to render the Roe decision a legal opinion rooted in Constitutional reasoning, other than showing it to be in the line of “privacy” cases descending from the already Constitutionally suspect Griswold v. Connecticut. It’s quite amazing, really. This judicial fiat nature of the decision is another reason so many on the Right have opposed it.
Prowhites should stay out of this as much as possible. I think the political effect in the short term will be fairly muted. … I’m guardedly optimistic that most people don’t care that much about abortion (not next to inflation, the economy, and crime, as well as, in the southwest, the border), and that the ones who do are already pretty evenly divided between their respective sides.
I think the longer term effect will be similarly ambivalent, but slightly positive. OTOH, some otherwise desirable abortions might be prevented. However, this will be muted by the facts that places likely to ban abortion completely already make obtaining abortions difficult, while people already do travel to more abortion-friendly states (and such abortion-tourism will presumably simply increase). The total number of abortions might not fall that much. OTOH, this might slightly accelerate the ideological sortitioning process across the country. I don’t know how many prolifers will move to abortion banning states for that reason alone. I suspect very few. That’s not the prolife/Christianist mindset. I do, however, foresee a much larger contingent of pro-abortion fanatics fleeing their oppressive “red states”, less because they are desperate to be in pro-choice areas, than general ideological distaste for “moral oppression” and the mentality and culture which produce it.
Progressives like to live with each other, and will go to considerable lengths to do so. I wish Hard Rightists would start behaving similarly (actually they are, so let me say, would accelerate doing so). The more ideo-geographically divided the nation, the better our shot at the Ethnostate (not to mention saving basic civilized living itself).
Constitutionally, repealing Roe is the right position. It was blatantly unconstitutional. The Constitution says nothing about abortion, and the states had various policies on this in place at the time of its ratification. If the Framers had wished to make unrestricted abortion on demand a superordinate Federal right, they could have enacted an amendment to the Constitution to that effect at the same time as the others that comprise the Bill of Rights. That they did not leads us necessarily to conclude that they did not consider abortion to be a Constitutional matter; they were content to leave abortion policy to be variously shaped by the several states.
I just can’t wrap my mind around how people find this to be a persuasive argument given that the Constitution itself explicitly precludes this interpretation:
The IX Amendment
The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.
The fact that not all rights are explicitly enumerated (i.e. that some rights are implicit) does not imply that all possible rights exist and are constitutionally protected. Only those that are ‘deeply rooted in the nation’s history and tradition’ or ‘implicit in the concept of ordered liberty’ are implicitly constitutionally protected.
<i>does not imply that all possible rights exist and are constitutionally protected.</i>
Obviously. That would be absurd.
Of course, if the right to make one’s own decisions concerning whether, when, and how many children to have, and how to raise and educate them, is not “implicit in the concept of ordered liberty,” I can’t imagine what would be. Can you?
We have the right to make “decisions concerning whether, when, and how many children to have”, but once pregnancy occurs it is no longer clear. Once pregnancy occurs, men don’t have the reproductive rights women are asking for, and women didn’t have them traditionally either.
Everyone can choose whether, when, and how many children to have by diligent use of contraception and abstinence.
Women have many additional options, including the Plan B pill (generally available over the counter), abortion (which will remain available even with Roe gone – with abortion pills available nationwide by mail after a chat with a teledoc over the Internet, plus medical tourism as needed), giving up a child for adoption, or abandoning it at the places legally set aside for that.
Even in the case of rape, men have no such reproductive rights once a pregnancy has occurred. There have been cases where a woman raped an underage boy, got pregnant, and then demanded child support payments once the boy turned 18. Men may even have to pay when the child is provably not theirs.
Perhaps our Constitutional rights should be more expansive. My point is that as a matter of fact they don’t seem to be.
AdamMil:
There is no right to Plan B, the pill, or even condoms explicitly provided in the Constitution, either. It relies on the same inferred right to privacy as abortion rights. This right to privacy either exists or does not exist. If we’re lucky, whatever finally comes down from the court will reaffirm that the right to privacy, if not the right to abortion, exists, though it may be outweighed by some other interest (such as protection of unborn life) in the case of abortion.
“Even in the case of rape, men have no such reproductive rights once a pregnancy has occurred.”
Sometimes I get the impression that many men oppose abortion rights out of spite.
There have been cases where a woman raped an underage boy, got pregnant, and then demanded child support payments once the boy turned 18.
Anyone can demand anything. Did she get it?
What about the 4d chess angle? This could cause such an uproar in liberal states that they start making absurd promises like reparations upon arrival… which could cause a great exodus of POCs to liberal states. I can see the advertisement now : “visit california for the free abortion, stay for the reparations.” Imagine if liberal states retaliated by encouraging minorities to leave red states…
The idea of 4d chess should have died some time in the first year of Trump’s presidency.
Births to teen mothers are good. These teen mothers should be married, sober, intent on being good wives and mothers, and (in a White society) White, with White husbands, and White babies. When these conditions are not met, there is a problem, but the problem is not that we are reproducing at the natural and proper age.
Our antiwhite fake-elites presume that “teen births” are bad for us, and that our women should start having children at around thirty, if at all, rather than at sixteen to nineteen. These fake-elites are harmful to us, and all the social engineering they do to delay and inhibit White fertility is harmful to our race.
We should not discuss abortion in the context that teen births and other such “evils” should be prevented, and the question is whether abortion is a morally legitimate and politically prudent means to that good end. We should discuss abortion in the context of strong commitments to White fertility, natural living, and young love, including maternal love.
Births to teen mothers are good.
Why? Which would you prefer? A mother with a fully-developed prefrontal cortex or a mother without a fully-developed prefrontal cortex. I would think the answer would be obvious.
“Births to teen mothers are good.
Why?”
We should respect Nature. A race that violates Nature’s fundamental laws will die. Men and women should marry young and be fruitful. Also, youth should not be frustrated in its Nature-given aims. Love is sweet, if difficult, and so is parenthood. This is real life, as it is meant to be lived. The torrent of life in young men and women should not be dammed up and made stagnant.
“Which would you prefer? A mother with a fully-developed prefrontal cortex or a mother without a fully-developed prefrontal cortex. I would think the answer would be obvious.”
If one insists on the fullest brain development before conception (for which there is no natural, biological reason), this would mean waiting till twenty-five or so, which is elderly for childbirth. That is contrary to the course of nature, for young women and young men. It’s also ruinous for our fertility as a race.
If one insists on the fullest brain development before conception (for which there is no natural, biological reason),
The “natural, biological reason” is that rearing children is difficult. It requires tremendous self-sacrifice, presence of mind, and ability to negotiate conflicts with your spouse. These things are challenging even for fully-fledged adults, let alone teenagers.
People in their late teens and early twenties do not want to take care of children. They want to enjoy their youth. Indeed, people forced into early parenthood are going to view it as a burden and feel they are missing out, because they are. We know that younger parents take longer to proceed to subsequent births, because they weren’t financially or emotionally prepared for the first child.
this would mean waiting till twenty-five or so, which is elderly for childbirth.
That’s absurd and unscientific.
It’s also ruinous for our fertility as a race.
No, it is not. A woman who starts at 25 can easily have half a dozen children. How many children do you want women to have? Even the Amish don’t normally start until their early 20s, and they’re doubling their population every 20 years.
https://www.researchgate.net/figure/Percent-Iowa-Amish-Women-with-a-First-Birth-by-Age_fig1_319132708
“Also, youth should not be frustrated in its Nature-given aims.”
Oh dear, I’m afraid there’s no helping that. Sexual restraint is an indispensable part of responsible adult married life.
Youth is strong, and it grows stronger feeding on legitimate responsibility. There is no responsibility more legitimate than married parenthood.
Decadent age thinks it is strong, because it accumulates wealth and tickets of social privilege, but in fundamental things it is weak.
The frontier wives that planted the wilderness of America with the White race did so with marriages at relatively healthy ages, vigorous young husbands, and wills of iron, not with worries about the state of their brain development.
We need the healthy, early, and abundant babies that are the fruit of virtuous youth and virgin brides.
The sicklier, later, and fewer babies that will issue from feminists with post-graduate degrees and thousand-cock stares (or Boston marriages) are not a good substitute, let alone a superior alternative.
As for sexual restraint, it should support the stability of youthful, fruitful, and faithful marriage, and not block life’s proper course.
The short version of the rest of my answer can be an image of Venus Genetrix, holding a ripe piece of fruit plucked at the proper time. This is a force we need, and which we need to revere and not block, or else we’ll die as a race.
The frontier wives that planted the wilderness of America with the White race did so with marriages at relatively healthy ages, vigorous young husbands, and wills of iron, not with worries about the state of their brain development.
Funny you mention the frontier, when abundant land meant a living for all your children without a great deal of investment. Indeed, no investment at all, because children are an economic boon in an agricultural economy. We are now in a completely different situation. It’s absurd to attempt to impose their norms on a post-industrial society.
Anabaptist families are having to squat in South America, destroying the rain forest, in order to maintain their lifestyle.
https://news.mongabay.com/2020/11/peru-prosecutors-probe-amazon-deforestation-linked-to-mennonite-communities/
We need the healthy, early, and abundant babies that are the fruit of virtuous youth and virgin brides.
You lot really need to get over your obsession with controlling women’s sexuality and accessing sex with teenagers. It’s really quite unseemly.
Wrong. It is women who want to ‘enjoy their youth’ (engage in hookup culture). Men have no such desire. The average man wants to settle down immediately. That is why high fertility only exists within patriarchy. Women have a much higher libido, contrary to popular belief and an insatiable thirst for variety. ‘Patriarchy’ can be reduced to simply ‘monogamy.’ It is a male invention. With the advent of medical science and liberalized laws/cultures women live in paradise, while men live in a 3rd world famine. Totally unsustainable long-term. Too many male losers in this arrangement.
It is women who want to ‘enjoy their youth’ (engage in hookup culture).
That you immediately thought of sex (rather than travel, reading, sports, etc.) when you read my post confirms my impression that you are indeed obsessed with your nether regions.
The average man wants to settle down immediately.
Only when mates are scarce. Otherwise, they prefer a promiscuous lifestyle.
https://royalsociety.org/news/2015/01/men-are-less-promiscuous-when-women-are-scarce/
‘Patriarchy’ can be reduced to simply ‘monogamy.’
Patriarchy can be reduced to monogamy for women and total freedom for men.
FIFY.
Women have a much higher libido, contrary to popular belief and an insatiable thirst for variety.
That must be why 80% of prostitutes are women, and the 20% who are men mostly cater to other men.
Seriously, this must be one of the most egregious attempts at gaslighting I have ever seen.
Lexi, thank you for your patient, steady work.
The fact you immediately deflect from a factual statement demonstrates I’m right. Divorce is initiated by women 75 percent of the time and not because of male infidelity or men not wanting children. Women control every aspect of sexuality and procreating. It is women who want less children, not men. Obviously it is incomparably more laborious for women than it is for men, but that does not change the facts. When given the choice, women choose less children and less men. And the ‘leading cause’ of divorce is ‘irreconcilable differences,’ which just means ‘I’m unhappy.’ You have to read between the lines, which isn’t that difficult. Prostitution is only male John, female hooker because of control of the market. These johns are not doing it because they are hornier than women. They are patronizing because they are not getting sex anywhere else, whereas women are…much more actually. That’s where the incel thing comes along. There is no female incel because women get sex all the time. This isn’t rocket science.
I think teen is a bit early for kids, but I’d definitely agree that most teenage girls (and boys!) should be on track towards marriage and family formation. I waited until I was in my 30s to have children and for a variety of reasons it was a mistake! Biologically, humans are sexually mature in their early teens and women become “elderly” for child-bearing purposes around 25 years old.
To ensure a sufficient number of children, women should start in their early-to-mid 20s at the latest, being married to a man perhaps five years older who’s starting to pull in decent money. And it’s not just good for society; it’s good for them. It’s hard to be an old parent. It’s hard to conceive. Pregnancy complications are more common. You don’t have the energy of youth. It’s hard to handle those sleepless nights and keep up with kids’ boundless energy. And there’s a greater cultural disconnect between child and parent.
So yes, I agree. We should be encouraging not just having kids, but starting young.
being married to a man perhaps five years older who’s starting to pull in decent money.
Therein lies the difficulty. Even one year of age difference is associated with higher divorce risk. It increases with every year after that.
https://www.marketwatch.com/story/the-bigger-the-age-gap-the-shorter-the-marriage-2014-11-11
You can legislate against divorce, but you can’t legislate against the unhappiness that drives it. Sometimes, utility for the individual must give way to the common good. This is not one of those times.
Birth control has certainly been a mixed blessing, but it does allow marriage before a couple is capable of supporting children, allowing a very precious honeymoon period with memories that can sustain a couple through many sleepless nights and conflicts.
There is no solution to this besides an incredibly unpopular one: patriarchy, which I cannot picture ever occurring. So instead we will keep on stumbling through this hellscape hemorrhaging our numbers, with many pretending that this is eugenics. I have heard so many different strategies and none of them work when it comes down to it because it is the system itself that is the problem, and convincing a woman to stay monogamous is a losing strategy. It is the tyranny of choice for women. The Red Pill is a joke. Religion is a joke, but it is closer to working because this structure was always reinforced by religion. But without the state it is useless. It really does take a village to play matchmaker, guardian and arbitrator. The ‘successful’ monogamists today are often on their 2nd or 3rd marriage, it is totally unnatural to simulate a surrogate family midway through a child’s youth, but it is better to be born in unfavorable conditions than to not be. Successful marriages for men these days comes down to everlasting luck and half-cuckoldry (knowing or unknowing) because the stats are all there that women want out of monogamy and large families.
the stats are all there that women want out of monogamy and large families.
Really? I haven’t seen them. Indeed, one of the reasons women often file for divorce is precisely because their husband has strung them along for five-ten years, saying they could have kids when they were ready, but then all of a sudden decides he really doesn’t want kids after all when she’s approaching her mid-30s. Of course, after the “biological-clock divorce,” he’ll have an easier time finding some other girl to string along, all the while telling himself that he did the good, unselfish thing by letting his first wife go, so she could pursue her dreams with someone else.
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/femail/article-3700123/Rise-biological-clock-divorce-s-one-craves-baby-doesn-t-HILARY-FREEMAN-knows-cost-destroys-marriages.html
The trend among women with advanced degrees (who presumably can afford multiple children) is toward less childlessness and larger families, even as they remain stubbornly resistant to the idea that they “don’t need no man.” Out-of-wedlock births are rare in this group.
https://www.pewresearch.org/social-trends/2015/05/07/childlessness-falls-family-size-grows-among-highly-educated-women/#:~:text=Not%20only%20are%20highly%20educated,up%20from%2051%25%20in%201994.
— Many pro-life conservatives respond to this argument with full-hearted agreement. They believe the government needs to provide more welfare to helpless moms in a world without abortion. —
That would produce C. M. Kornbluth’s “The Marching Morons.” We can’t have it.
A great essay. Roe was constitutionally flawed, a usurpation of legislative power by the judiciary. Courts do not have the power to create new rights out of thin air, like the Sorcerer’s Apprentice. Amend the Constitution if you need a new fundamental right. State constitutions can usually be amended more easily than the US Constitution. In 1965 SCOTUS handed down Griswold v. Connecticutt based on discovering a “right to privacy” that was un discovered for 200 years. The people of Connecticutt could have amended their own state constitution to include a “right to privacy” if they wanted it as did the voters of California in 1970.
Repealing Roe is good from constitutional perspective but probably a demographic mistake (if not a disaster) for whites because most abortions are of non-whites and other undesirables who shouldn’t reproduce. Hopefully pro-abortion states will subsidize non-resident abortions so undesirables can travel, even at public expense, to abortion states and kill off their offspring who would grow up to be criminals or Democrat voters.
On another note, teenaged child birth is biologically desirable but socially and economically difficult. No easy answer to this one.
Comments are closed.
If you have a Subscriber access,
simply login first to see your comment auto-approved.
Note on comments privacy & moderation
Your email is never published nor shared.
Comments are moderated. If you don't see your comment, please be patient. If approved, it will appear here soon. Do not post your comment a second time.