"We do not reverse the demand for abortion by shoving marriage and family life down young women’s throats—we risk confirming it." Wow--what a mic-drop! Thank you for this thought-provoking, nuanced, and necessary article.
YES. The adjacent tradwife movement makes me feel icky for this exact reason. Any movement that demonizes OR idolizes a caricature of femininity risks losing sight of the imago Dei inherent in women.
Was thinking along these lines too, Olivia...if tradwifery is womanhood, then we can't be surprised when a majority of women reject it. It's far, far too narrow.
I always think of John Paul II here and his upholding of dignity of how much the feminine genius is needed in every area of life. But to be in every area of life means to be open to God opening doors to a career or even just a local job.
I’m grateful for my Latino background that seems to be able to hold these two in tension in a very approachable and sobering way, neither glamorizing nor demonizing.
This all edges so closely to Duggar / Gothard territory.
Every time someone writes rationally and calmly and thoughtfully about abortion with empathy and compassion for all parties involved, an angel gets its wings.
Disclaimer 1: I am very much a political orphan as I want to conserve: family, faith, culture, beautiful things, civilization, fertile land, animals treated like animals and given the dignity animals are due, etc etc. I would absolutely not fit in at this summit.
Disclaimer 2: I have no idea what I would actually think of this summit as the author of the piece you linked is clearly unreliable. I might think it was terrible, or just too sorority girl for me personally but largely fine. I don't know and can't tell just by that piece.
Given those disclaimers, I think the general approach of telling young people that marriage and motherhood and fatherhood are good is absolutely central to reducing the demand for abortion. We can still have compassion for those in other situations, and we can still help the unwed mother. But we need young people to focus on finding their vocation (which, for about 2/3 of us according to various saints, is marriage) and committing wholeheartedly to it. That doesn't mean anyone is a failure if she's not married by 30 or women can't also pursue other things to some extend, but that should absolutely be the focus or abortion will continue to be the back up plan for so many.
My personal experience of close friends having abortions is pretty limited, but in the main case, neither she nor her boyfriend found it to be a particularly hard decision. It was just the natural extension of the selfish life they were living. I mistakenly flew back from a family reunion to try to help her chose life, but she had already chosen abortion pills and had no real thought of doing anything else. To be fair to her, had her boyfriend proposed, I think she would have reconsidered, but that is not at all what was expected of him, by himself, by their culture, or by her. She "didn't want to pressure him" so did not even imply that she would marry him. Selling his guitar to pay for it was the most he needed to do, and he did it.
The other was a friend's new boyfriend's old girlfriend, and boy was the new girlfriend (my colleague) mad that the boyfriend might be saddled a kid without having a "choice" (as if sleeping with her wasn't a choice!!!).
My kids are going crazy so I'll have to stop even though I have more to say.
We don't reverse the demand for abortion by shoving marriage and family down young women's throats, but we DO reverse by telling them they don't need to be afraid of marriage and motherhood. That they should reserve baby-making behavior for marriage. And if they don't, we will help.
Shotgun weddings get a bad name but I can think of 3 off the top of my head and they are all super happy. I don't think they should be done in every case but they aren't so bad.
As I wrote, being pro-family and the problematic approach common now on the Right are two different things. We're in agreement that women need to hear that motherhood isn't something to be feared, hence my point that the Right endangers the pro-life movement when they speak this way.
Well that was absolutely not clear in your piece and you didn’t detail what was problematic about the turning point summit, you just took the author’s word that it was “shoving marriage and family down their throats.” As I said i couldn’t really tell if it was terrible or not as she was very clearly not reliable.
Suggesting to women that they seek MRS degrees after decades of being told that’s shallow just doesn’t sound terrible to me. Nor does telling girls it’s good to get married, ideally by 30 (with caveats of course)— especially girls who have clearly been prepped for careers like the rest of us.
I’m certainly skeptical of the “tradwife” trend or really any trend of living your life online. Alex Clark seems sad and a somewhat shallow to me. But I need a lot more than what you wrote to see that this was in any way anti-woman.
You are not being very concrete as to what exactly the problem is. It seems like the approach is to tell young people that they should focus more on family formation than careers, but then you say that you agree with me that being "pro-family" is a good thing.
If you are writing about a larger trend on the right, you should give examples of what you are writing about that is such a problem.
Finally balancing the pro-career rhetoric we have heard from the elites (including "conservative" elites) for years with pro-marriage rhetoric seems totally reasonable to me.
Re-reading your piece, it seems like you are saying we are going to make women afraid that they will be put in a box and they will rebel against it. Is that right?
Or that if they find themselves pregnant in other circumstances, they will chose to abort for the optics?
I can't tell.
I do not want to pigeon-hole anyone but it seems that we've been told to focus on our careers for decades so some balance is warranted.
The other option of what you are saying is clearly not the main problem as the abortion rate now is manifold higher than it was a hundred years ago. It's certainly something to keep in mind in discussing things with our daughters but that's it.
Well, right more clearly next time since I don't actually know which you meant, or what the actual problem with TPUSA was, only that you don't want to be identified with being ConservativeTM. Who cares?
Don't assume that because I called that account out as unreliable I said it was not worth reading differing viewpoints. Not at all the same.
What sort of society do we have if women think that abortion is a good option for them? Even abortion were to be punished so harshly that nobody would dare to seek one or administer one tomorrow, the anti-humanness of our society that produced sentiments in favor of such ubiquitous abortion would remain. This, among many other things, has always bothered me deeply.
I’m not a fan of TPUSA and find the platform overly antagonistic and off putting, but having read this article and the article referenced, TPUSA has a better message than the message in the referenced article, which is pro abortion, pro birth control, and pro promiscuity.
I’m not dismissing your concerns, but as a conservative man, I’d like to better understand and listen—I’m just not understanding your perspective on women who abort their babies.
I mean, having sex, having children, and raising children are special things and involve a great deal of responsibility. The women who find themselves in the situation in which they seek abortions have sex carelessly. Would you acknowledge that? That is the core problem I feel like is almost always dismissed. These women didn’t get pregnant by accident, they don’t live virtuous lives, and it seems that you are asking the rest of society to accommodate irresponsible women at the expense of others who are in need. I recently ran into a mother who has lost her limbs and nose as a result of sepsis. I donated to her GoFundMe and commended her bravery and courage. These are the kinds of people who should be prioritized, resources are limited.
While I agree these women should be supported during and after pregnancy, I only agree insofar that it may prevent an abortion, not out of principle. Because in principle, vice and disorder should not be rewarded.
As a woman, why is she having sex outside of marriage? Birth control incentivizes irresponsible and unsafe sex. Abortion has skyrocketed since the introduction of birth control. Ultimately these women live lives far from virtue and at the end of the day, others suffer because of their lack of responsibility. Is this not an issue? A child may die because his/her mother lacks decency, resources and attention are directed from others to these women, and at the end of the day, if she gets an abortion, she suffers no temporal consequences—thereby cementing her lack of responsibility and accountability.
I’m not trying to be antagonistic here, but I struggle to reconcile your article and the article referenced to a respect for the dignity of life, personal responsibility and accountability, and virtue. These “vulnerable” women are not well intentioned and good meaning, since if they were, they would have had a child in marriage with a good man. Why would a woman destroy her life and a child’s life for physical pleasure to satisfy her base desire?
Because men do not have the physical repercussions (ie pregnancy) announced on their bodies, men do not suffer the shame or stigma of sexual relations outside 'ideal' circumstances. Both men and women are having sex outside of marriage today -- you can argue why that is, or if it is right or wrong etc (and be encouraging a stable relationship ideally within marriage for consummation) -- but while you are debating all these things, real women and children are going to suffer.
Most women today will not view their actions as irresponsible, especially since most of them have been taught from a young age that if they use birth control (which many do, and still have an accidental pregnancy) they are doing the responsible, adult thing. You also don't recognize the enormous pressure women feel in a sexualized society to conform to the desires or wants of their partner, and that sexual desirability (and indeed, availability), are ingrained in many young women as the means by which they will be valuable to men. In many ways, the pro-natalism contingent feasts on these same fears - women are "good" and "desirable" if they are ready and willing to have sex and babies.
Neither of these 'sides' acknowledges the complexity of women as human beings, who may be called to a variety of roles, both motherhood and career, or even a religious celibate vocation. The narratives are all so simplistic. I think people should be far less concerned with 'punishing' women for some deviation from a particular sexual ethic and more interested in meeting them where they are - and of course caring for their children, no questions asked, in the process.
The building up of a society that values a healthy family culture - marriage, children, and the full flourishing of spouses as individuals - should be all of our hope and focus, but narratives that reduce women to baby machines and turn back the clock on the absolutely necessary contributions of feminism (a woman being allowed to initiate divorce, have a credit card, flee an abusive spouse, sign a mortgage in her name, have a right to her children after divorce, etc, to name a few) is not the answer.
So where exactly do I, a single man in my 20s and building my life, along with the other decent in society fit in this situation? Now I and others must carry the burden of irresponsible women (and men)? Do you value accountability for women? Because all I’m hearing are excuses. Children are suffering, yes, but not women. Women are the ones who create the suffering by being promiscuous.
If women are not capable of discerning virtue for themselves (and men), the only solution is to limit their freedom, as they are not capable of virtue. It’s not like these women haven’t heard the better alternative choices, they hear them and refuse to make good decisions. It’s that simple. If you tell a woman that chastity is great, marriage is beautiful, etc. She will reject that and even mock it. She prefers a life of vice. How is she a victim when she makes her own decisions.
No one, absolutely no one is “called” to have a career. All men and women are called to be fathers, either as parents or mentors.
The fact that these women don’t view their actions as irresponsible is a problem. They are a problem. You say to meet these women where they are, but this has been tried and it doesn’t work. They don’t desire virtue, love, or goodness. They literally prefer and love the complete opposite of those things. These women are the villains in the story and it’s wild to me to see people make excuses for them. Have you actually talked to or engaged with these kinds of women? I know a woman who hooks up with men multiple times a week for validation, it doesn’t take a PhD in ethics to determine that this is not good.
Again, I agree on the critique of TPUSA, but the defense of irresponsible women is truly shameful, and it honestly makes me sympathetic to their message because you and other critics refuse to discuss responsibility and accountability. Children are suffering because of irresponsible men and women, yet you paint the women as victims. Would you defend the men who pressure women to get abortions? You would be consistent if you did. At some point we need to start holding women accountable and not place the burden of their destructive behavior on the rest of us who just trying to live simple, decent and good lives. All that I do or at least try to do, is for the sake of an ultimate good? For my family, myself, my community, and my country. These women don’t have that mindset, and they are a problem for everyone, especially children. They are out here killing their own children and we are supposed to cry for them? Personally, I’m not sure how could manage mentally after having killed my own child all so I could get laid. I’d be devastated, but these women celebrate that.
I would just say that none of what you are referencing remotely reflects the views of the Catholic Church, which of course affirms the seriousness and gravity of abortion and the consequences of sex outside of marriage, but all the more so encourages radical compassion, mercy, and understanding. And *does* teach that many women are called to various occupations and careers. There are many women who are hoping to get married, raise a family, etc, and some who hope to do so, but make mistakes along the way, or simply don't see a good alternative presented to them (especially when the alternative is a very simplistic pronatalist one, as Rachel detailed in her piece). I agree with and follow the Church's teachings on these issues. I suggest reading both St. John Paul II's "Letter to Women" and "Evangelium Vitae" which I will quote here to illustrate the extremely complicated reasons women seek abortions --
"It is true that the decision to have an abortion is often tragic and painful for the mother, insofar as the decision to rid herself of the fruit of conception is not made for purely selfish reasons or out of convenience, but out of a desire to protect certain important values such as her own health or a decent standard of living for the other members of the family. Sometimes it is feared that the child to be born would live in such conditions that it would be better if the birth did not take place. Nevertheless, these reasons and others like them, however serious and tragic, can never justify the deliberate killing of an innocent human being.
As well as the mother, there are often other people too who decide upon the death of the child in the womb. In the first place, the father of the child may be to blame, not only when he directly pressures the woman to have an abortion, but also when he indirectly encourages such a decision on her part by leaving her alone to face the problems of pregnancy: in this way the family is thus mortally wounded and profaned in its nature as a community of love and in its vocation to be the "sanctuary of life". Nor can one overlook the pressures which sometimes come from the wider family circle and from friends. Sometimes the woman is subjected to such strong pressure that she feels psychologically forced to have an abortion: certainly in this case moral responsibility lies particularly with those who have directly or indirectly obliged her to have an abortion."
So when you have someone who has made such a decision - whether its sex before marriage, or to have an abortion - the goal is rehabilitation, understanding, and enabling a life that allows full reconciliation and, if a child has been born, a healthy, safe environment for the children. This isn't 'rewarding' anything. It's simple human decency, and exactly what Christ called Christians to do.
You appealed to the notion that we ought to meet these women where they are at, could you do the same and meet me where I am at? Because I’m wanting to understand, I really do. But you and the author of this piece makes it very confusing to me because y’all don’t address personal responsibility and accountability. As if a woman’s bad decisions are not her own. That’s where I’m lost in all this of this. Because I don’t believe you have the same view for the men who force women to have abortions. I don’t believe you have the same compassion for child rapists. Or the same compassion for abusive husbands. We are treating murderous mothers with a special privilege that I struggle to reconcile to other situation. Worse yet is the fact the most abortions are repeat abortions by the same woman, so they are making the same decisions over and over again. It’s not a one time “mistake”.
How do you reconcile personal responsibility and accountability when it comes to these women? Why is that you write off their actions as if it’s the fault of others? As I said, these women reject the case for virtuous living. I found God in my quest for truth and goodness, anyone who seeks those things will find God.
If the author is serious about her concerns, she wouldn’t ignore these questions from right wing men such as myself who don’t share her perspective. So I’m not really convinced she’s serious about that.
Do you where my view is coming from? I don’t think we are ultimately divided in goal here. I very much would like to see women thrive. A society that doesn’t care for women simply isn’t a good or pleasant one.
There's a big difference between someone committing a sin knowingly and unknowingly. Most people in our society, whether they are poorly catechized or are outside of religion entirely (as most people are), simply have huge areas of misunderstanding when it comes to ethics, particularly sexual ethics. The Church teaches that you cannot commit a mortal sin without full knowledge. That means you have to *know* it is wrong. If you are someone growing up entirely in secular society where you are taught that abortion is healthcare, etc, you simply do not know the full gravity of your actions. And as St. JPII pointed out, there are often issues of coercion at play, which mitigate culpability. (for instance, if you do something with a gun to your head, you are not considered fully responsible for your actions). I think there are just many grey areas, and I don't presume to know every woman (or man's) situation. That is between them and God, and if they are Catholic, their confessor. The Church of course encourages and expects penance, reflection, and reconciliation as the goal but understands this is a long road. It's wonderful if your road to truth was so easily found, but it isn't for everybody, even people with a sincere desire to find it. I don't think there is much cultural confusion or acceptance of rape or men forcing women into abortions. Secular society (as well as irreligious documents like the Universal Declaration of Human Rights) attest to the serious depravity of these actions, so we wouldn't necessarily assume ignorance or misunderstanding. But though it may make us uncomfortable, with our desire for black and white rules and clear just outcomes, all people can seek and find forgiveness, no matter what crimes they have committed. That is the ultimate teaching of Christianity, and it is one that we hope to see illustrated here on Earth, however imperfectly.
There are cultures where men raping women are not understood as evil. Places in Africa, for example. Yet we would not say to have compassion on these men.
But what I’m hearing from you is these women are not personally responsible or should be held accountable for their actions? I’m not talking about sin here. But if that is the case, you make the negative argument for TPUSA. Personally, I don’t want to live in a society where women who live irresponsibly are not held to absolutely bo moral standard. As a Catholic, I don’t see how anyone could make that case. We shouldn’t hold women accountable for their irresponsible actions?
I've met women who join Catholic young adult groups, keep their pants on, and settle down with a guy in their mid 20s after keeping their virginity. This is a choice that is available to any woman, though it requires certain lifestyle choices.
I've met others that party and fuck around well into their 30s and beyond. Yes, they definitely meet the kind of guys that won't date them if they don't put out pretty early in the relationship, but this is to be expected if you pursue these men and this lifestyle.
The middle class ones don't get pregnant because they use birth control, and birth control works 99.999% of the time. When someone says they got pregnant while on birth control they are almost surely lying (they didn't take the pills correctly which is trivially easy, they didn't use a more permanent form, etc).
The lower class ones get pregnant because they don't use birth control because they want to get pregnant. Perhaps this is a half formed idea for them (being lower class they rarely plan for the future), but it is what it is.
There are people in-between these two pictures who have pre-marital sex but not often and are trying to have real relationships but won't commit to things like religion or other peers groups that take it seriously.
The bottom line is what the right is going for is more people forming stable families. They want to reward that behavior, not reward poor behavior. It's a tough balancing act wanting to support single moms enough they don't get an abortion but not so much that people think being a single mom is OK and thus make that lifestyle choice more often since we all respond to incentives. You're never going to get the right supporting unlimited resources for single mothers (nor would you want that if you're responsible). If that means some of them get abortions I think that is something the right can live with. Otherwise you end up going all repugnant conclusion trying to prevent every abortion every time.
The goal should be to not get pregnant outside of marriage in the first place, which means not having sex outside of marriage, which means dating people who want to form families. That's going to take a segment of the population out of your dating pool, but life is full of choices.
I do think the right should be doing more to support responsible married parents (things like the CTC), but it's hardly like the left is one board with that either. The fundamental problem we have in politics is that the median voter is 55 years old, which means support for families is never going to be a big political priority for anyone and instead we get things like no taxes on social security. Single moms get some assistance because they are a sob story and their votes are relatively cheap to buy for the left.
I agree, TPUSA has a better message than the linked article, which was fairly unreliable about what actually happened there anyway.
"We have to rescue babies.
Rescuing babies is pulling them out of the stream of death as they come by, at great risk to ourselves. It’s reaching out to their mothers who are being sucked under by the maelstrom.
And then some of us must climb upriver to see who or what is throwing them in at the top."
So, yes, we need to help these mothers, despite the fact that they were irresponsible, both to save the child and try to pull the mother out of a life of vice. But we need to look to see what is endangering the children in the first place.
"The women who find themselves in the situation in which they seek abortions have sex carelessly. Would you acknowledge that? That is the core problem I feel like is almost always dismissed."
My expectation is that she won't acknowledge that, but will dismiss it because, I think, she (they) want to have their cake and eat it, too.
You’re right. She won’t acknowledge it, at all. To the author, women can do no wrong and they make bad decisions, it’s the man’s fault, of course, and society’s responsibility to fix the woman’s situation.
"We do not reverse the demand for abortion by shoving marriage and family life down young women’s throats—we risk confirming it." Wow--what a mic-drop! Thank you for this thought-provoking, nuanced, and necessary article.
YES. The adjacent tradwife movement makes me feel icky for this exact reason. Any movement that demonizes OR idolizes a caricature of femininity risks losing sight of the imago Dei inherent in women.
Was thinking along these lines too, Olivia...if tradwifery is womanhood, then we can't be surprised when a majority of women reject it. It's far, far too narrow.
I always think of John Paul II here and his upholding of dignity of how much the feminine genius is needed in every area of life. But to be in every area of life means to be open to God opening doors to a career or even just a local job.
I’m grateful for my Latino background that seems to be able to hold these two in tension in a very approachable and sobering way, neither glamorizing nor demonizing.
This all edges so closely to Duggar / Gothard territory.
Every time someone writes rationally and calmly and thoughtfully about abortion with empathy and compassion for all parties involved, an angel gets its wings.
Thank you for this, Rachael!
Disclaimer 1: I am very much a political orphan as I want to conserve: family, faith, culture, beautiful things, civilization, fertile land, animals treated like animals and given the dignity animals are due, etc etc. I would absolutely not fit in at this summit.
Disclaimer 2: I have no idea what I would actually think of this summit as the author of the piece you linked is clearly unreliable. I might think it was terrible, or just too sorority girl for me personally but largely fine. I don't know and can't tell just by that piece.
Given those disclaimers, I think the general approach of telling young people that marriage and motherhood and fatherhood are good is absolutely central to reducing the demand for abortion. We can still have compassion for those in other situations, and we can still help the unwed mother. But we need young people to focus on finding their vocation (which, for about 2/3 of us according to various saints, is marriage) and committing wholeheartedly to it. That doesn't mean anyone is a failure if she's not married by 30 or women can't also pursue other things to some extend, but that should absolutely be the focus or abortion will continue to be the back up plan for so many.
My personal experience of close friends having abortions is pretty limited, but in the main case, neither she nor her boyfriend found it to be a particularly hard decision. It was just the natural extension of the selfish life they were living. I mistakenly flew back from a family reunion to try to help her chose life, but she had already chosen abortion pills and had no real thought of doing anything else. To be fair to her, had her boyfriend proposed, I think she would have reconsidered, but that is not at all what was expected of him, by himself, by their culture, or by her. She "didn't want to pressure him" so did not even imply that she would marry him. Selling his guitar to pay for it was the most he needed to do, and he did it.
The other was a friend's new boyfriend's old girlfriend, and boy was the new girlfriend (my colleague) mad that the boyfriend might be saddled a kid without having a "choice" (as if sleeping with her wasn't a choice!!!).
My kids are going crazy so I'll have to stop even though I have more to say.
We don't reverse the demand for abortion by shoving marriage and family down young women's throats, but we DO reverse by telling them they don't need to be afraid of marriage and motherhood. That they should reserve baby-making behavior for marriage. And if they don't, we will help.
Shotgun weddings get a bad name but I can think of 3 off the top of my head and they are all super happy. I don't think they should be done in every case but they aren't so bad.
https://likemotherlikedaughter.org/2017/01/there-is-no-other-plan-marriage-is-the-plan/
As I wrote, being pro-family and the problematic approach common now on the Right are two different things. We're in agreement that women need to hear that motherhood isn't something to be feared, hence my point that the Right endangers the pro-life movement when they speak this way.
Well that was absolutely not clear in your piece and you didn’t detail what was problematic about the turning point summit, you just took the author’s word that it was “shoving marriage and family down their throats.” As I said i couldn’t really tell if it was terrible or not as she was very clearly not reliable.
Suggesting to women that they seek MRS degrees after decades of being told that’s shallow just doesn’t sound terrible to me. Nor does telling girls it’s good to get married, ideally by 30 (with caveats of course)— especially girls who have clearly been prepped for careers like the rest of us.
I’m certainly skeptical of the “tradwife” trend or really any trend of living your life online. Alex Clark seems sad and a somewhat shallow to me. But I need a lot more than what you wrote to see that this was in any way anti-woman.
Not sure I'm following you, but I'm actually writing about a larger trend on the Right, not just about the TPUSA summit. Thanks for reading.
You are not being very concrete as to what exactly the problem is. It seems like the approach is to tell young people that they should focus more on family formation than careers, but then you say that you agree with me that being "pro-family" is a good thing.
If you are writing about a larger trend on the right, you should give examples of what you are writing about that is such a problem.
Finally balancing the pro-career rhetoric we have heard from the elites (including "conservative" elites) for years with pro-marriage rhetoric seems totally reasonable to me.
Re-reading your piece, it seems like you are saying we are going to make women afraid that they will be put in a box and they will rebel against it. Is that right?
Or that if they find themselves pregnant in other circumstances, they will chose to abort for the optics?
I can't tell.
I do not want to pigeon-hole anyone but it seems that we've been told to focus on our careers for decades so some balance is warranted.
The other option of what you are saying is clearly not the main problem as the abortion rate now is manifold higher than it was a hundred years ago. It's certainly something to keep in mind in discussing things with our daughters but that's it.
Not interested in re-writing my article in the comments section. Noted, and once again, thanks for reading.
Well, right more clearly next time since I don't actually know which you meant, or what the actual problem with TPUSA was, only that you don't want to be identified with being ConservativeTM. Who cares?
Don't assume that because I called that account out as unreliable I said it was not worth reading differing viewpoints. Not at all the same.
What sort of society do we have if women think that abortion is a good option for them? Even abortion were to be punished so harshly that nobody would dare to seek one or administer one tomorrow, the anti-humanness of our society that produced sentiments in favor of such ubiquitous abortion would remain. This, among many other things, has always bothered me deeply.
I’m not a fan of TPUSA and find the platform overly antagonistic and off putting, but having read this article and the article referenced, TPUSA has a better message than the message in the referenced article, which is pro abortion, pro birth control, and pro promiscuity.
I’m not dismissing your concerns, but as a conservative man, I’d like to better understand and listen—I’m just not understanding your perspective on women who abort their babies.
I mean, having sex, having children, and raising children are special things and involve a great deal of responsibility. The women who find themselves in the situation in which they seek abortions have sex carelessly. Would you acknowledge that? That is the core problem I feel like is almost always dismissed. These women didn’t get pregnant by accident, they don’t live virtuous lives, and it seems that you are asking the rest of society to accommodate irresponsible women at the expense of others who are in need. I recently ran into a mother who has lost her limbs and nose as a result of sepsis. I donated to her GoFundMe and commended her bravery and courage. These are the kinds of people who should be prioritized, resources are limited.
While I agree these women should be supported during and after pregnancy, I only agree insofar that it may prevent an abortion, not out of principle. Because in principle, vice and disorder should not be rewarded.
As a woman, why is she having sex outside of marriage? Birth control incentivizes irresponsible and unsafe sex. Abortion has skyrocketed since the introduction of birth control. Ultimately these women live lives far from virtue and at the end of the day, others suffer because of their lack of responsibility. Is this not an issue? A child may die because his/her mother lacks decency, resources and attention are directed from others to these women, and at the end of the day, if she gets an abortion, she suffers no temporal consequences—thereby cementing her lack of responsibility and accountability.
I’m not trying to be antagonistic here, but I struggle to reconcile your article and the article referenced to a respect for the dignity of life, personal responsibility and accountability, and virtue. These “vulnerable” women are not well intentioned and good meaning, since if they were, they would have had a child in marriage with a good man. Why would a woman destroy her life and a child’s life for physical pleasure to satisfy her base desire?
Because men do not have the physical repercussions (ie pregnancy) announced on their bodies, men do not suffer the shame or stigma of sexual relations outside 'ideal' circumstances. Both men and women are having sex outside of marriage today -- you can argue why that is, or if it is right or wrong etc (and be encouraging a stable relationship ideally within marriage for consummation) -- but while you are debating all these things, real women and children are going to suffer.
Most women today will not view their actions as irresponsible, especially since most of them have been taught from a young age that if they use birth control (which many do, and still have an accidental pregnancy) they are doing the responsible, adult thing. You also don't recognize the enormous pressure women feel in a sexualized society to conform to the desires or wants of their partner, and that sexual desirability (and indeed, availability), are ingrained in many young women as the means by which they will be valuable to men. In many ways, the pro-natalism contingent feasts on these same fears - women are "good" and "desirable" if they are ready and willing to have sex and babies.
Neither of these 'sides' acknowledges the complexity of women as human beings, who may be called to a variety of roles, both motherhood and career, or even a religious celibate vocation. The narratives are all so simplistic. I think people should be far less concerned with 'punishing' women for some deviation from a particular sexual ethic and more interested in meeting them where they are - and of course caring for their children, no questions asked, in the process.
The building up of a society that values a healthy family culture - marriage, children, and the full flourishing of spouses as individuals - should be all of our hope and focus, but narratives that reduce women to baby machines and turn back the clock on the absolutely necessary contributions of feminism (a woman being allowed to initiate divorce, have a credit card, flee an abusive spouse, sign a mortgage in her name, have a right to her children after divorce, etc, to name a few) is not the answer.
So where exactly do I, a single man in my 20s and building my life, along with the other decent in society fit in this situation? Now I and others must carry the burden of irresponsible women (and men)? Do you value accountability for women? Because all I’m hearing are excuses. Children are suffering, yes, but not women. Women are the ones who create the suffering by being promiscuous.
If women are not capable of discerning virtue for themselves (and men), the only solution is to limit their freedom, as they are not capable of virtue. It’s not like these women haven’t heard the better alternative choices, they hear them and refuse to make good decisions. It’s that simple. If you tell a woman that chastity is great, marriage is beautiful, etc. She will reject that and even mock it. She prefers a life of vice. How is she a victim when she makes her own decisions.
No one, absolutely no one is “called” to have a career. All men and women are called to be fathers, either as parents or mentors.
The fact that these women don’t view their actions as irresponsible is a problem. They are a problem. You say to meet these women where they are, but this has been tried and it doesn’t work. They don’t desire virtue, love, or goodness. They literally prefer and love the complete opposite of those things. These women are the villains in the story and it’s wild to me to see people make excuses for them. Have you actually talked to or engaged with these kinds of women? I know a woman who hooks up with men multiple times a week for validation, it doesn’t take a PhD in ethics to determine that this is not good.
Again, I agree on the critique of TPUSA, but the defense of irresponsible women is truly shameful, and it honestly makes me sympathetic to their message because you and other critics refuse to discuss responsibility and accountability. Children are suffering because of irresponsible men and women, yet you paint the women as victims. Would you defend the men who pressure women to get abortions? You would be consistent if you did. At some point we need to start holding women accountable and not place the burden of their destructive behavior on the rest of us who just trying to live simple, decent and good lives. All that I do or at least try to do, is for the sake of an ultimate good? For my family, myself, my community, and my country. These women don’t have that mindset, and they are a problem for everyone, especially children. They are out here killing their own children and we are supposed to cry for them? Personally, I’m not sure how could manage mentally after having killed my own child all so I could get laid. I’d be devastated, but these women celebrate that.
I would just say that none of what you are referencing remotely reflects the views of the Catholic Church, which of course affirms the seriousness and gravity of abortion and the consequences of sex outside of marriage, but all the more so encourages radical compassion, mercy, and understanding. And *does* teach that many women are called to various occupations and careers. There are many women who are hoping to get married, raise a family, etc, and some who hope to do so, but make mistakes along the way, or simply don't see a good alternative presented to them (especially when the alternative is a very simplistic pronatalist one, as Rachel detailed in her piece). I agree with and follow the Church's teachings on these issues. I suggest reading both St. John Paul II's "Letter to Women" and "Evangelium Vitae" which I will quote here to illustrate the extremely complicated reasons women seek abortions --
"It is true that the decision to have an abortion is often tragic and painful for the mother, insofar as the decision to rid herself of the fruit of conception is not made for purely selfish reasons or out of convenience, but out of a desire to protect certain important values such as her own health or a decent standard of living for the other members of the family. Sometimes it is feared that the child to be born would live in such conditions that it would be better if the birth did not take place. Nevertheless, these reasons and others like them, however serious and tragic, can never justify the deliberate killing of an innocent human being.
As well as the mother, there are often other people too who decide upon the death of the child in the womb. In the first place, the father of the child may be to blame, not only when he directly pressures the woman to have an abortion, but also when he indirectly encourages such a decision on her part by leaving her alone to face the problems of pregnancy: in this way the family is thus mortally wounded and profaned in its nature as a community of love and in its vocation to be the "sanctuary of life". Nor can one overlook the pressures which sometimes come from the wider family circle and from friends. Sometimes the woman is subjected to such strong pressure that she feels psychologically forced to have an abortion: certainly in this case moral responsibility lies particularly with those who have directly or indirectly obliged her to have an abortion."
So when you have someone who has made such a decision - whether its sex before marriage, or to have an abortion - the goal is rehabilitation, understanding, and enabling a life that allows full reconciliation and, if a child has been born, a healthy, safe environment for the children. This isn't 'rewarding' anything. It's simple human decency, and exactly what Christ called Christians to do.
You appealed to the notion that we ought to meet these women where they are at, could you do the same and meet me where I am at? Because I’m wanting to understand, I really do. But you and the author of this piece makes it very confusing to me because y’all don’t address personal responsibility and accountability. As if a woman’s bad decisions are not her own. That’s where I’m lost in all this of this. Because I don’t believe you have the same view for the men who force women to have abortions. I don’t believe you have the same compassion for child rapists. Or the same compassion for abusive husbands. We are treating murderous mothers with a special privilege that I struggle to reconcile to other situation. Worse yet is the fact the most abortions are repeat abortions by the same woman, so they are making the same decisions over and over again. It’s not a one time “mistake”.
How do you reconcile personal responsibility and accountability when it comes to these women? Why is that you write off their actions as if it’s the fault of others? As I said, these women reject the case for virtuous living. I found God in my quest for truth and goodness, anyone who seeks those things will find God.
If the author is serious about her concerns, she wouldn’t ignore these questions from right wing men such as myself who don’t share her perspective. So I’m not really convinced she’s serious about that.
Do you where my view is coming from? I don’t think we are ultimately divided in goal here. I very much would like to see women thrive. A society that doesn’t care for women simply isn’t a good or pleasant one.
There's a big difference between someone committing a sin knowingly and unknowingly. Most people in our society, whether they are poorly catechized or are outside of religion entirely (as most people are), simply have huge areas of misunderstanding when it comes to ethics, particularly sexual ethics. The Church teaches that you cannot commit a mortal sin without full knowledge. That means you have to *know* it is wrong. If you are someone growing up entirely in secular society where you are taught that abortion is healthcare, etc, you simply do not know the full gravity of your actions. And as St. JPII pointed out, there are often issues of coercion at play, which mitigate culpability. (for instance, if you do something with a gun to your head, you are not considered fully responsible for your actions). I think there are just many grey areas, and I don't presume to know every woman (or man's) situation. That is between them and God, and if they are Catholic, their confessor. The Church of course encourages and expects penance, reflection, and reconciliation as the goal but understands this is a long road. It's wonderful if your road to truth was so easily found, but it isn't for everybody, even people with a sincere desire to find it. I don't think there is much cultural confusion or acceptance of rape or men forcing women into abortions. Secular society (as well as irreligious documents like the Universal Declaration of Human Rights) attest to the serious depravity of these actions, so we wouldn't necessarily assume ignorance or misunderstanding. But though it may make us uncomfortable, with our desire for black and white rules and clear just outcomes, all people can seek and find forgiveness, no matter what crimes they have committed. That is the ultimate teaching of Christianity, and it is one that we hope to see illustrated here on Earth, however imperfectly.
There are cultures where men raping women are not understood as evil. Places in Africa, for example. Yet we would not say to have compassion on these men.
But what I’m hearing from you is these women are not personally responsible or should be held accountable for their actions? I’m not talking about sin here. But if that is the case, you make the negative argument for TPUSA. Personally, I don’t want to live in a society where women who live irresponsibly are not held to absolutely bo moral standard. As a Catholic, I don’t see how anyone could make that case. We shouldn’t hold women accountable for their irresponsible actions?
I've met women who join Catholic young adult groups, keep their pants on, and settle down with a guy in their mid 20s after keeping their virginity. This is a choice that is available to any woman, though it requires certain lifestyle choices.
I've met others that party and fuck around well into their 30s and beyond. Yes, they definitely meet the kind of guys that won't date them if they don't put out pretty early in the relationship, but this is to be expected if you pursue these men and this lifestyle.
The middle class ones don't get pregnant because they use birth control, and birth control works 99.999% of the time. When someone says they got pregnant while on birth control they are almost surely lying (they didn't take the pills correctly which is trivially easy, they didn't use a more permanent form, etc).
The lower class ones get pregnant because they don't use birth control because they want to get pregnant. Perhaps this is a half formed idea for them (being lower class they rarely plan for the future), but it is what it is.
There are people in-between these two pictures who have pre-marital sex but not often and are trying to have real relationships but won't commit to things like religion or other peers groups that take it seriously.
The bottom line is what the right is going for is more people forming stable families. They want to reward that behavior, not reward poor behavior. It's a tough balancing act wanting to support single moms enough they don't get an abortion but not so much that people think being a single mom is OK and thus make that lifestyle choice more often since we all respond to incentives. You're never going to get the right supporting unlimited resources for single mothers (nor would you want that if you're responsible). If that means some of them get abortions I think that is something the right can live with. Otherwise you end up going all repugnant conclusion trying to prevent every abortion every time.
The goal should be to not get pregnant outside of marriage in the first place, which means not having sex outside of marriage, which means dating people who want to form families. That's going to take a segment of the population out of your dating pool, but life is full of choices.
I do think the right should be doing more to support responsible married parents (things like the CTC), but it's hardly like the left is one board with that either. The fundamental problem we have in politics is that the median voter is 55 years old, which means support for families is never going to be a big political priority for anyone and instead we get things like no taxes on social security. Single moms get some assistance because they are a sob story and their votes are relatively cheap to buy for the left.
I agree, TPUSA has a better message than the linked article, which was fairly unreliable about what actually happened there anyway.
"We have to rescue babies.
Rescuing babies is pulling them out of the stream of death as they come by, at great risk to ourselves. It’s reaching out to their mothers who are being sucked under by the maelstrom.
And then some of us must climb upriver to see who or what is throwing them in at the top."
So, yes, we need to help these mothers, despite the fact that they were irresponsible, both to save the child and try to pull the mother out of a life of vice. But we need to look to see what is endangering the children in the first place.
https://likemotherlikedaughter.org/2017/01/there-is-no-other-plan-marriage-is-the-plan/
That is why I also didn't think the reports about TPUSA were so terrible, even if I think I would have found it off-putting.
"The women who find themselves in the situation in which they seek abortions have sex carelessly. Would you acknowledge that? That is the core problem I feel like is almost always dismissed."
My expectation is that she won't acknowledge that, but will dismiss it because, I think, she (they) want to have their cake and eat it, too.
You’re right. She won’t acknowledge it, at all. To the author, women can do no wrong and they make bad decisions, it’s the man’s fault, of course, and society’s responsibility to fix the woman’s situation.