Lion of the Blogosphere

How anti-abortion people are legitimatizing unmarried teenage pregnancy

I’ve written about this topic before, but here’s a New York Times article the clearly demonstrates what’s happening.

An 18-year-old unmarried pregnant girl, the boyfriend who got her pregnant completely out of the picture and not named by the article, attends a small private Christian school, which is shaming her by not allowing her to attend the graduation ceremony.

Sounds reasonable to me considering that pre-marital sex is considered a major sin by Christians. This isn’t public school. Fifty years ago, she probably would have been kicked out. Fifty years ago, good Christian parents wouldn’t have wanted their pregnant unmarried teenage daughter to be seen in public and they would have sent her away somewhere and made her give up the baby for adoption. But no, that’s not what happens today, she continues to go to school with plans to become an unmarried mom, just like some girl from the ghetto.

But this modern leniency is still not enough for the anti-abortion people.

“She made the courageous decision to choose life, and she definitely should not be shamed,” said Kristan Hawkins, the Students for Life president, who tried unsuccessfully to persuade the administrator of Heritage Academy to reverse the decision. “There has got to be a way to treat a young woman who becomes pregnant in a graceful and loving way.”

So acting like a typical ghetto teenager means that she’s labeled as “courageous.” A great way to encourage more teenage sex and more unmarried teenage moms is to laud them for their “courageous” decision to commit the sin of premarital sex and then let nature take its course.

She said she felt that she was being treated more harshly than students who have been suspended for, say, underage drinking and lying about it.

Of course she should be treated more harshly! Drinking alcohol merely violates a secular rule, while premarital sex is considered, by Christians, to be a major sin against God.

Ultimately, and ironically, the actions of anti-abortion people are causing more premarital teenage sex which leads to more pregnancies and more abortions.

Written by Lion of the Blogosphere

May 21, 2017 at 10:43 am

69 Responses

Subscribe to comments with RSS.

  1. The anti-abortion people consider this to be a moral issue. End results have no weight in their thoughts on the matter.

    Girls in this situation could still give the child up for adoption.

    CamelCaseRob

    May 21, 2017 at 11:01 am

    • “End results have no weight in their thoughts on the matter.”

      Yeah making the right “moral” choice is what they deem important, so long term results are not even a factor. That’s why the churches are so supportive of refugees. What’s important is the feel good smugness now, not the long term result.

      Mike Street Station

      May 21, 2017 at 12:06 pm

      • It’s more about that they perceive abortion as the worst possible form of murder. Other sins or social problems pale in comparison.

        bobbybobbob

        May 21, 2017 at 5:14 pm

    • > End results have no weight in their thoughts on the matter.

      The irony is that one of the big criticisms that conservatives have of liberals is that liberals tend to think that as long as they follow the official process and think the right thoughts, that results don’t matter

      ScarletNumber

      May 21, 2017 at 5:13 pm

    • Was the father of the child also a student at the school? Does he get attend the ceremony?

      Honestly, I blame the girl’s father. What the hell is he doing letting his daughter get knocked up? I have sons not daughters, but I would definitely pressure my son to marry the girl. I wouldn’t pay for his college unless he married her. If he married her, I would buy them a house. Unmarried motherhood is a disgusting disgrace.

      not too late

      May 21, 2017 at 5:37 pm

  2. The pro-life movement is cucked to a large extent, like most Christian churches. But pro-life and Christianity are still both right regardless.

    Andrew E.

    May 21, 2017 at 11:02 am

    • The most outspoken pro-life people I know are all women. Their views are 100% grounded in MUH FEELS, rather than respect for traditional values, order, and patriarchy. As such they are unreliable allies: they will support constraints on baby-killing, but they will never support constraints on female hypergamy.

      Christianity in general has lost touch with its moral foundations. At this point it’s all pomp and circumstance.

      Baked Matt Forney

      May 21, 2017 at 5:09 pm

      • I don’t disagree. Our entire society has become feminized, Christianity and the cultural ‘right’ included. Ultimately though (white) men have to change that. They need to reclaim their testicles. Leave cucked churches, avoid and shame loose women, abandon the Democrat party. Men should ridicule other men who fail to do these things.

        Andrew E.

        May 22, 2017 at 8:52 am

  3. The movement has internalized the choice rhetoric. It used to be that a child is not a choice. Now it’s choose life. Saw a lot of it on Facebook on Mother’s Day. “Thank you mom for choosing life!” and such.

    b1281018

    May 21, 2017 at 11:11 am

  4. She is white and if the father is white she shouldn’t abort. You think Hester should’ve had an abortion? No way!

    Yakov

    May 21, 2017 at 11:28 am

    • Yea, because this guy is just automatically worth bringing into the world: http://bit.ly/2rFjxIX

      Dain

      May 21, 2017 at 12:51 pm

      • Yes, he is. If the NAMs shouldn’t be aborting under normal evolutionary conditions. It’s just that the social programs stimulate population of disgenic retards. But in a normal world there should only be abortion when mother’s wellbeing is being compromised. This is very simple.

        Yakov

        May 21, 2017 at 1:14 pm

  5. Can we get a break down of teen pregnancy and stds at ” small private Christian school” vs the gen pop before you make and broad, confident prescriptions about what works and what doesnt?

    *Especially* when your data points a offered up the perpetual suspicious NYT.

    Lion o' the Turambar

    May 21, 2017 at 11:52 am

    • Teen pregnancy is a prole problem rather than a secular problem. I’m sure that there’s less pregnancy at the Chapin School than there is at a prole Christian school.

      • At Chapin a pregnant girl is stigmatized for being too stupid to use birth control, not for having extramarital sex.

        But single motherhood should always be discouraged. Abortion is preferable to single motherhood.

        Jimi

        May 21, 2017 at 12:50 pm

      • Why are you so sure Lion? How much do you really know about Christian schools, apart from the slanted things you hear from the mainstream media? Not trying to be confrontational here, but just asking. I happen to agree with you totally that the Christian Right and social conservatives in general have been using the anti-abortion cause as a reason to avoid confronting the problem of unwed motherhood in America. It pains me to say this, but you are right that their actions are harmful to American society. However, it is likely that there is just as much teen pregnancy in upper middle class schools. But there it is taken care of by abortions – and probably not spoken of. After all, no one has to know if a UMC girl has an abortion. But unless you send a girl away somewhere everyone can see that she’s pregnant.

        There is a book called “The Truth about Harvard” – written by a Harvard student several years ago. He said that in March there is a dance given there that is called “The Last Chance Dance” which is a way for graduating seniors to find a significant other while still at Harvard. I mentioned a friend of mine who graduated Harvard and met her husband there – they met at this dance. The young author refers to this event as “notorious for Ivy-league baby-making.” I found this stunning, but that’s what he wrote. I mean with all the hard work and future-orientation that it takes to get admitted to Harvard and graduate from it, why would people lose control and end up with an unwanted pregnancy so close to graduating? For the record, though, my friend didn’t get pregnant.

        Maryk

        May 21, 2017 at 12:57 pm

      • Upper-class children actually have less sex, and are more careful about using birth control.

        The article said that 80% of young evangelicals engage in premarital sex. That’s a much higher percentage than Harvard-bound students, even though the Harvard-bound students would insist that premarital sex isn’t sinful. http://www.newsweek.com/58-harvard-came-school-virgins-quarter-leave-way-336847

      • ‘I’m sure that there’s less pregnancy at the Chapin School than there is at a prole Christian school.’

        It’d not the class – it’s the sex drive. High IQ people have high energy levels and high sex drive, so I don’t think it’s true. I’m low IQ, but I imagine that high IQ must be nuclear. This is how they do all the great things that the do.

        Yakov

        May 21, 2017 at 2:01 pm

      • If Harvard students are virgins (especially at 22) it’s because they’re socially-awkward nerds, not because their parents raised them to adhere to 1950’s sexual morality.

        snorlaxwp

        May 21, 2017 at 2:49 pm

      • @Jimi:

        “But single motherhood should always be discouraged. Abortion is preferable to single motherhood.”

        That’s retarded. If the parents and their families are intelligent and well adjusted, if the fetus is healthy, then they should be encouraged – and yes, even paid – to have as many kids as possible, in or out of wedlock. And if the ghetto – nice dog whistle there – parents were to get married, abortion would still be better.

        Jesse

        May 21, 2017 at 3:35 pm

      • How about marriage instead of abortion as a remedy for unmarried motherhood? Who are these parents who who rather kill their own grandchild rather than see their kids get married? If a girl is old enough to get pregnant, she is old enough to marry.

        not too late

        May 21, 2017 at 5:42 pm

      • Hassidic Jews are prole and yet they don’t have this problem at all, I believe same goes for the Amish, so I would say that the level of religion strictness does affect it alongside class.

        Hashed

        May 21, 2017 at 6:40 pm

      • The Amish are less prole than the Hassidim.

      • Hassidic Jews have strict moral code and complete separation of the sexes and marry by 17-19. They have plenty of teenage pregnancies, but all of them are within the marriage framework.

        Yakov

        May 22, 2017 at 9:53 am

      • How do you figure that Amish are less prole than Hassidim?

        The Amish often lack indoor plumbing, etc. Do you mean that Amish are even lower prole than Hassidim?

        not too late

        May 22, 2017 at 5:36 pm

      • I think that Amish are nice. It’s been a long time since I’d visited them. Gotta go see them again. You can read an Amish newspaper and compared to a Chassidic one it’s a real bore. All they write about is horses and weddings, but it’s very cute. I hoped that they would write about their religion, but they don’t. Very boring.

        Yakov

        May 22, 2017 at 9:58 pm

  6. Christians and Catholics have largely eliminated the concepts of sin and hell. The new and improved Jesus is all about love and forgiveness. No more weeping and gnashing of teeth and burning in a lake of fire and brimstone (sulfur) for eternity for your transgressions. The fear factor has been excised from Western religion and so have the positive social controls that used to accompany it.

    Mark Caplan

    May 21, 2017 at 12:33 pm

  7. You make a good point with this. The other reality is if it weren’t for legalized abortion the nam population would be twice what it is today along with higher welfare and incarceration rates.

    In my own heart I know that abortion is both morally and ethically wrong but it is really hard not to go along with it when the societal results of outlawing it would be so devastating. By the way, Roger Stone said he had a source tell him that Justice Kennedy is retiring. Trump has said that he wants his next Supreme Court pick to be more “libertarian”. I am reading between the lines on this that he wants somebody who is pro choice and won’t overturn Roe v Wade. Trump pays lip service to the pro lifers but at the end of the day he knows that we sadly need it. Plus Ivanka would never speak to him again.

    B.T.D.T.

    May 21, 2017 at 1:02 pm

    • Someone like a younger Judge Posner would be great.

    • What we need in a SC justice who’s willing and eager to destroy the immigrant community. So no libertarians and no “missionary in Africa” type Jesus freaks. If there were 70 Republican Senators my suggestion would be Ann Coulter. Since that’s not the case he should find the most-partisan/least-cucked youngish circuit court justice he can.

      All else equal a pro-choice justice would be better, but you have to be extra-sure they aren’t pro-choice due to general closet liberalism. And I wouldn’t risk it in the first term; Trump’s on thin ice with the Jesus cucks as it is. I think Trump should’ve run as openly pro-choice in 2016, but that ship has sailed. He’s committed himself and for now he’s going to have to stick to that.

      snorlaxwp

      May 21, 2017 at 4:45 pm

    • ‘Libertarian” in this context, I suspect, means someone like Gorsuch who’s re-considered the Chevron doctrine which means a Supreme Court that will set down rulings allowing for the dismantling of FDR’s administrative state and allow for the possibility to really gut the federal bureaucracy. This is pure Bannonism. Regardless, Trump’s justice noms will most certainly be pro-life.

      Andrew E.

      May 21, 2017 at 8:24 pm

      • So we will just end up trading the administrative state for the baby mama state.

        B.T.D.T.

        May 22, 2017 at 7:32 am

      • Administrative state == baby momma state

        Andrew E.

        May 22, 2017 at 11:52 am

    • Abortion is wrong and evil, but so is war. When your existence is threatened by the enemy, normal nations go to and all out war to protect themselves. Abortion in today’s society should be used as a tactic to fight the enemy that threats to destroy the civilization. It’s no worse then going to outright war against it. This is the only justification that I find for it. This is very simple.

      Yakov

      May 22, 2017 at 9:59 am

  8. Let’s not forget also that the media decided a long time ago that single mommery equated to secular sainthood. It’s reached a point to where I’ve heard of at least one instance where a young widow called herself a “single mom,” rather than a widow as if the former was somehow more sympathetic than the latter.

    Sgt. Joe Friday

    May 21, 2017 at 1:16 pm

    • > It’s reached a point to where I’ve heard of at least one instance where a young widow called herself a “single mom,” rather than a widow as if the former was somehow more sympathetic than the latter.

      I have seen this too. The widow had no choice in the matter, while the single mom did.

      ScarletNumber

      May 21, 2017 at 5:11 pm

  9. Christians are absolute buffoons. They glorify single mommery, adopt black babies, respect Dubya Bush as a patriot, and put up billboards like “MLK was a Republican.”

    Dalrock extensively goes over the idiocy, weakness, and hypocrisy of the modern cucked Chruch-ians. Sheep, indeed.

    fakeemail

    May 21, 2017 at 2:20 pm

  10. Just a reminder that birth control is not fucking rocket science. No one ever “accidentally” gets pregnant. I mean, yeah, over the broader population obviously a few folks do, but not anywhere near as many as the ones who claim it happened by accident.

    One friend of mine got a chick pregnant on a one night stand a few years back because he “forgot” to wear a condom and I’m like dude what did you expect? That’s basic stuff they tell you when you’re 14. Now he’s stuck having to deal with the crazy BPD mother the rest of his life. Because he FORGOT to wear a condom. Just wearing the condom is like 80% of the battle won already.

    Jokah Macpherson

    May 21, 2017 at 3:16 pm

    • With perfect use, the failure rate of the pill would leave the average user with three kids over her reproductive life. That is with perfect use according to the manufacturer’s FDA required testing. Younger women are more fertile and less conscientious, so their failure rate is higher. Several of my very smart professional women friends had surprise babies. They were all married, so it didn’t matter, but the fact is birth control does sometimes fail and it fails more for some than others. Just as the feminists don’t want young women to know that the single greatest risk factor for breast cancer is delaying childbearing till after age 20, they also don’t like to talk too much about birth control failure rates of various methods, some of which is pretty danged high. They do love to talk about abortion as a fix.

      no too late

      May 21, 2017 at 7:23 pm

      • I know this is not accurate without even looking it up because the average person doesn’t have three or more accidentally conceived kids running around.

        There is definitely an order of magnitude gap between perfect and typical use with most methods but perfect is usually low enough for steamy teenage hookups (much less than 1% rate for pill). I guess my point though is to bring attention to that gap and suggest that if people really cared about not getting pregnant, they would be more careful. Would definitely apply to your smart professional women friends; having an extra baby is not catastrophic.

        Jokah Macpherson

        May 22, 2017 at 6:25 pm

  11. She’s a white, reasonably intelligent, middle class girl. Of COURSE you want her having as many babies as possible, no matter her marital status at the time. Of COURSE that’s not the case for the ghetto mamas.

    Can we stop pretending that the same rules have to apply for everyone?

    And if the funditards want to go their own way, they can give up their tax exempt status.

    Jesse

    May 21, 2017 at 3:33 pm

    • Why would any middle class parents want their daughter to behave like someone from the ghetto? They want their daughters to get married first, THEN have children. Unwed motherhood is NOT good for any race.

      • The problem with the ghetto kids, if you look at it logically, isn’t whether or not they sign a piece of paper before procreating but, realistically, that they’re procreating at all or as much.

        You can be as disgusted by out of wedlock births as you want, but trying to stop bright, white, middle class unmarried people from having kids is just pissy and illogical.

        Out of wedlock births are highly correlated with terrible life outcomes. They don’t cause them. This lady’s child will most likely be fine. The ghetto kids will most likely not, even if their parents get married.

        Jesse

        May 21, 2017 at 3:45 pm

      • Women having children young isn’t necessarily some trashy R-selected ghetto trait.

        Lion, nature dictates that women are most fertile and able to have healthy babies between onset of period (13 or 14 years old) to mid 20s or so. NATURE!

        Therefore, a girl who has the capability of being an MD contributes more to the world (and herself) if she has 4 kids early as opposed to complete her education at 30 then rush to squeeze out a kid before it’s too late.

        That’s why women used to go to finishing school and were trained in how to be a wife and mother. And they would be wed to a promising young man with career opportunities. That’s how it *should* be in a sane and civilized society that wants to maintain itself!

        Whites have become “too good” to let their daughters forego 10 years of post-grad work/slutting around/self-fulfillment and horribly have kids when nature intended her to.

        fakeemail

        May 21, 2017 at 3:52 pm

      • Thus is very simple. Check this out: I have a 53 year old cousin, who is a Harvard graduate, a 33year old niece and a 35 year old nephew, who graduated from the best Russian engineering school, in Israel I have a 37 year old nephew, who is a university professor. I think that if middle class and upper-middle class parents want to have posterity, they should discourage their teenage children to use contraceptives and play down the chances of an unexpected wanted pregnancy.

        Say, you Lion or Maryk, you could’ve had a couple of kids as teenagers, maybe. And what do you have now? Gurnisht. So, yeah, definitely, middle-class parents should encourage teenage pregnancy.

        Yakov

        May 21, 2017 at 5:04 pm

      • Oops, Lion, please remove the duplicate comment. Forgot the main part – none of these smart and successful people have any kids. This is a disaster.

        Yakov

        May 21, 2017 at 5:30 pm

      • Why would any middle class parents want their daughter to behave like someone from the ghetto? They want their daughters to get married first, THEN have children. Unwed motherhood is NOT good for any race.

        I agree with you but isn’t that cucked un HBD aware reasoning?

        Magnavox

        May 21, 2017 at 7:27 pm

      • “Out of wedlock births are highly correlated with terrible life outcomes. They don’t cause them”

        Yes. And playing with fire doesn’t “cause” getting burned. The fire going on your skin does. So I propose we encourage fire-playing among responsible people. After all, why should they be burdened with the taboo against fire playing when they might be perfectly capable of avoiding the fire getting on their skin? I mean if some fools can’t play with fire without getting burned why should they ruin the experience for the rest of us? In fact, I propose Jesse start playing with fire to show us how easy it is do it responsibly without harming oneself.

        Maryk

        May 21, 2017 at 7:36 pm

      • Why is marriage so important? Basically, it’s to ensure that the mother has somewhere to live, and someone to provide an income while she looks after her infant/young child. If she has these things anyway (perhaps provided by her parents), it’s not obvious why her not being married should matter.

        Hobbesian Meliorist

        May 21, 2017 at 11:20 pm

      • Children need a father and family structure to grow up normal. This is why.

        Yakov

        May 22, 2017 at 7:48 am

      • “They want their daughters to get married first, THEN have children. Unwed motherhood is NOT good for any race.”

        Leon is mostly right about that.

        “Out of wedlock births are highly correlated with terrible life outcomes. They don’t cause them. “

        Jesse is mostly right about that.

        Here’s the thing. Over 90% of the people on welfare are single mothers. It’s very hard to be a single mother. Most will be poor. And most will have fewer children because of it. Now, I’m sure someone will point out that poor women tend to have more children. But that’s because they’re too dumb to use birth control correctly. I’m think any smarter ones are likely to have fewer children because it’s so hard to do it alone, In fact, it’s hard to live alone even without children. That’s why so many single people share an apartment with a room mate, Therefore, getting married makes life easier and probably results in more children for smart people. Of course, if someone waits until they’re 35 then that’s dumb, too. Get married in early to mid 20s and start having kids.

        destructure

        May 22, 2017 at 5:12 pm

    • “Yes. And playing with fire doesn’t “cause” getting burned. The fire going on your skin does.”

      This is so retarded that it’s hard to know where to start. You WANT smart white Americans from good families to have babies, regardless of marital status. That is a good thing. Marriage will not make the underclass any better.

      Jesse

      May 22, 2017 at 10:25 am

      • Jesse, I never said that smart white Americans from good families shouldn’t increase their birthrate. Of course they should. We agree on this. It’s under what conditions they should be having children that we disagree.. We have volumes of proof that marriage in general is better for everyone – men, women, and especially children. If you don’t agree that this is the case, at least confront the issue directly. Where is this marriage-less society you envision? And would these “good families” you speak of remain good for long if the children they produce didn’t have fathers? What about the white underclass in Britain? Their illegitimacy rate is astronomical. And from what I hear they are complete barbarians in their behavior. Their white genes aren’t helping them.

        As for marriage being “a piece of paper” this is a ridiculous simplification of a complex subject. The paper is a symbol only. A symbol of a legal and psychological commitment – and the societal expectations that go along with it and work on shaping an individual’s behavior long-term. Naturally, there are people, both in the underclass and the middle-class, whose values are so far from being marriage-oriented that even getting them to commit legally wouldn’t make them good spouses or parents. Those people shouldn’t be encouraged to marry since they clearly don’t want to. I’m talking about people who might be borderline and might be brought into a marriage-oriented lifestyle.

        If you’re really concerned with the survival of the white race, encourage most men and women to marry, have children, and stay married. It doesn’t mean every last person in the society needs to do this. Just most people.

        Maryk

        May 22, 2017 at 4:00 pm

  12. The late, great Lawrence Auster used to write about this topic, particularly during the rise of Sarah Palin. He was harshly critical of mainstream social conservatives, who had until then been staunchly anti-illegitimacy, for approving Bristol’s pregnancy. I’ll never forget the way he put it in one entry: “All that’s required for them to be happy is an illegitimate or defective pregnancy, followed by birth.”

    Hermes

    May 21, 2017 at 10:11 pm

  13. Getting pregnant is the most important thing for a normal girl. By normal I mean average. The earlier, the better. And this is the thing the girl has the full control over.

    My Two Cents

    May 21, 2017 at 10:15 pm

  14. Jewishprolifefoundation, which is an easy website to find, has interesting observations on why Jews, of all people, should abhor ‘liberal’ abortion laws.
    Also, Lion, your self-styled alt-right commenters who criticize Christian pro-lifers probably do not know that countries that care enough about their children to outlaw almost all abortions of those children are almost all the type of countries alt-right commenters admire.
    50 years from now people will look back on pro-choicers as ignorant or easily deceived, at best.
    And no, Trump is not going to appoint some libertarian younger version of Posner. Not going to happen (I say this as someone who supported Trump over all 16 or so of the other Republican presidential candidates from day one, by the way).

    howitzer daniel

    May 21, 2017 at 10:29 pm

    • In other Jewish news Adam Sandler is probably going to get an Oscar nomination – best supporting actor – less than a year from now. I kid you not.

      howitzer daniel

      May 21, 2017 at 10:45 pm

  15. There’s nothing wrong with teenage motherhood, as such. Unwed motherhood, maybe, but not teenage motherhood. In the 1950s, it was perfectly normal for a woman to marry and have her first child while still a teenager. Persuading women to delay motherhood for the sake of a career has contributed to a slow demographic catastrophe throughout the developed world.

    Hobbesian Meliorist

    May 21, 2017 at 11:14 pm

    • In Sparta the marriage age was 18-20, when in the rest of the Ancient Greece it was 12-14. Spartans wanted healthy population and were delaying the childbearing for that purpose. Makes sense, smart people, but what does the science say?

      Yakov

      May 22, 2017 at 7:47 am

      • Sparta? An unfortunate example. Aristotle remarked on their steadily declining population. They eventually went extinct.

        Hobbesian Meliorist

        May 23, 2017 at 6:16 pm

  16. If Christians wanted to do something to increase their numbers, they would encourage young males to marry at 18 with a partner they like and begin reproducing and put in a community support system. But noooo, they would rather obsess over BS about the wonders of virginity where you end up with some socially stunted young adults.

    Lab Guy

    May 22, 2017 at 7:28 am

    • Hassidic Jews do exactly that.

      Yakov

      May 22, 2017 at 12:01 pm

  17. There is nothing wrong with teenage sex as long as the man is older, (and the girl can consent).

    chris

    May 22, 2017 at 8:37 am

    • Everything is fucked, fucked I tell you! Burn it all down!

      Single motherhood is bad because women choose thuggish men for that kind of procreation. For he 150 IQ woman this usually means a 142 IQ man with slightly better than need social skills. The 150 IQ man gets left behind.

      For the 100 IQ woman, this typically means an 85 IQ man who is a con artist and will spend most of his life in and out of penetenturies. The 100 IQ man gets left behind.

      Mating is a zero sum status game. In order to fix the mating market you will have to basically enslave women relative to where they are today. Good luck. However, if anyone is willing to do something so crazy it’d be a wild horse like Trump.

      Trump is the joker and Bruce Wayne in one body.

      Paul Ryan's Sickly Old Lapdog

      May 22, 2017 at 4:29 pm

      • No. Single motherhood is bad because for the child this usually equates to “a fatherless childhood.” And that’s why the term “single mother” is used. The focus is always on the mother’s status, not the child’s status. This is why we’re approaching the point where people don’t want to use the term “illegitimate” anymore for a child born outside of marriage. We want to pretend that it’s unfair for a child to be stigmatized with this word – ignoring the fact that this stigma is really intended to influence the parent’s behavior, not the child’s. And really a more appropriate term would be “unaccounted for” rather than “illegitimate.” But the point is that the society that puts stigma on using any term for an out-of-wedlock child isn’t really doing this for the child’s benefit, but for the benefit of selfish women who want a baby and don’t really care if the child suffers and men who want to prove their virility by fathering children they have no intention of raising. Children have lost so much status in the U.S. that they are now viewed as little better than high-level house pets.

        As to changing the mating market in America, there is nothing Donald Trump or anyone else could do about this. Changes of this kind don’t occur through government. To establish more traditional family mores, some movement will have to arise that tells the American people that their own values, not the values of some “elite” are the real problem. I’ve been waiting decades for this to happen. But it hasn’t. Donald Trump’s white working class male supporters would turn on him in a minute if he told them they had to marry before age 21, not shack up, and not have babies with a women they weren’t married to. They’d deride him for his “1950’s values” and look for a new anti-establishment hero.

        Maryk

        May 22, 2017 at 5:39 pm

  18. I’ve said this elsewhere.

    Believing that abortion should be supported because NAM’s are primarily affected is like believing that abortion is somehow a fast one that you are pulling on the Democrats. It’s the tax loophole argument all over again.

    The key point to keep in mind is that the government will help nam’s have as many children as they want. Therefore, it is not the rate of abortion among nam’s that matters. It is the live births among nams that register as a real population increase that matters. Nams could have ten times as many abortions and that would not matter because if their live birth rate outstrips others, then they are winning.

    That’s why all that matters is how many abortions are being committed by whites, because the government will not help white people have as many children as they want, in the end. Losses to abortion for whites are far greater and that is why abortion should be illegal.

    map

    May 22, 2017 at 8:24 pm

    • “The key point to keep in mind is that the government will help nam’s have as many children as they want.”

      This is the key point about our government: they use our tax dollars to subsidize the multiplication of enemies/replacements. Everything else is just commentary.

      fakeemail

      May 23, 2017 at 9:23 am

      • The government also uses tax dollars to fund abortions and contraceptives for those people, but Republicans are trying to stop that.

      • The idea is to stop white people from having abortions so the white live birth rate increases. Legalized abortion prevents this. Whether this results in the nam population increasing even faster is secondary because the nam population is already increasing at a faster rate than non-nams. Besides, if the fig -eaf argument of population control is something the left truly believes in, then it forces the population control issue to be handled by welfare and immigration control.

        map

        May 24, 2017 at 11:05 am


Comments are closed.

%d bloggers like this: