Many people have been writing on the effort by the National Center for Men to free men from having to pay child support. In other words, giving them a “choice.” Unfortunately, even conservatives don’t really seem to be getting the point.
Kathryn Lopez writes on NRO, that “A “Roe v. Wade for men,” however, would only make a messed-up world worse.” It seems to me that she is missing something here.
Ofcourse pro-lifers would agree with that expanding something they view as bad (Roe) would make things worse. Expanding + Bad = Worse.
But what about those who think Roe is a good thing? In their view Roe is good. And doesn’t it make sense that expanding something good to more people is better? Expanding + good = better.
Or how about this? If babies are a problem to both men and women and the final solution for women was abortion, why is this such a terrible final solution for men?
The point is, it’s not. If killing is a just act in the effort to avoid an inconvenience, then so is being a deadbeat. The only reason pro-choicers have a problem with this is because they haven’t been conditioned to think it okay. If they were holding true to their own logic (like our friend Sara Boatright) they wouldn’t have a problem with it.
On the otherhand, ofcourse prolifers find it reprehensible. Mrs. Lopez is stating the obvious and missing something big here. Those who vehemently support abortion (plannned parenthood, the feminazi in your math class, etc.) want to create a very different world from those who value life. And we’ll all be a lot better off when we realize that fact. The world that Mrs. Lopez invisions and the one the director of NOW invisions are at odds. Only one of them can prevail.