More on deadbeat fathers

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.

4 thoughts on “More on deadbeat fathers

  1. Anonymous Reply

    Peter Singer points out that “the change in Western attitudes toward infanticide since Roman times is, like the doctrine of the sanctity of human life of which it is a part, a product of Christianty. Perhaps it is now possible to think about these issues without assuming the Christian moral framework that has, for so long, prevented any fundamental reassessment.” In other words, without Christianity, why is killing an infant really that bad. After all, we have already determined that killing it in the womb is in fact a “fundamental right.”In answer to this, I I refer you to Pope Leo XIII and his encyclical on the True Nature of Liberty, found here: applicable is this excerpt written way back in 1888 (how prescient!):”What naturalists or rationalists aim at in philosophy, that the supporters of liberalism, carrying out the principles laid down by naturalism, are attempting in the domain of morality and politics. The fundamental doctrine of rationalism is the supremacy of the human reason, which, refusing due submission to the Divine and eternal reason, proclaims its own independence, and constitutes itself the supreme principle and source and judge of truth. Hence, these followers of liberalism deny the existence of any Divine authority to which obedience is due, and proclaim that every man is the law to himself; from which arises that ethical system which they style independent morality, and which, under the guise of liberty, exonerates man from any obedience to the commands of God, and substitutes a boundless license. The end of all this it is not difficult to foresee, especially when society is in question. For, when once man is firmly persuaded that he is subject to no one, it follows that the efficient cause of the unity of civil society is not to be sought in any principle external to man, or superior to him, but simply in the free will of individuals; that the authority in the State comes from the people only; and that, just as every man’s individual reason is his only rule of life, so the collective reason of the community should be the supreme guide in the management of all public affairs. Hence the doctrine of the supremacy of the greater number, and that all right and all duty reside in the majority. But, from what has been said, it is clear that all this is in contradiction to reason. To refuse any bond of union between man and civil society, on the one hand, and God the Creator and consequently the supreme Law-giver, on the other, is plainly repugnant to the nature, not only of man, but of all created things; for, of necessity, all effects must in some proper way be connected with their cause; and it belongs to the perfection of every nature to contain itself within that sphere and grade which the order of nature has assigned to it, namely, that the lower should be subject and obedient to the higher. 16. Moreover, besides this, a doctrine of such character is most hurtful both to individuals and to the State. For, once ascribe to human reason the only authority to decide what is true and what is good, and the real distinction between good and evil is destroyed; honor and dishonor differ not in their nature, but in the opinion and judgment of each one; pleasure is the measure of what is lawful; and, given a code of morality which can have little or no power to restrain or quiet the unruly propensities of man, a way is naturally opened to universal corruption. With reference also to public affairs: authority is severed from the true and natural principle whence it derives all its efficacy for the common good; and the law determining what it is right to do and avoid doing is at the mercy of a majority. Now, this is simply a road leading straight to tyranny. The empire of God over man and civil society once repudiated, it follows that religion, as a public institution, can have no claim to exist, and that everything that belongs to religion will be treated with complete indifference. Furthermore, with ambitious designs on sovereignty, tumult and sedition will be common amongst the people; and when duty and conscience cease to appeal to them, there will be nothing to hold them back but force, which of itself alone is powerless to keep their covetousness in check. Of this we have almost daily evidence in the conflict with socialists and members of other seditious societies, who labor unceasingly to bring about revolution. It is for those, then, who are capable of forming a just estimate of things to decide whether such doctrines promote that true liberty which alone is worthy of man, or rather, pervert and destroy it.” Also, Peter Kreeft has a really good and pertinent article regarding this issue here:

  2. Anonymous Reply

    By the way, the quote from Peter Singer above, came from his book titled “Practical Ethics”.

  3. Jeff Reply

    As a Classics major, I’d like to point out that many Romans were anti-abortion, and it was outlawed most of the time.Christianity didn’t change that; it reinforced it.

Leave a Reply