Bro-Choice: understanding the motivations of the pro-choice man-child

Ben Sherman: man-child
Ben Sherman: man-child

Ask the Bigot first alerted me to a post by a pro-abortion male (not man, male) in which he explains why males such as himself favor abortion.

Now the context of this post is the Texas bill banning abortions after 20 weeks.

Here’s the point I want to focus on:

How #HB2 Hurts Straight Texas Men

Your sex life is at stake

Can you think of anything that kills the vibe faster than a woman fearing a back-alley abortion? Making abortion essentially inaccessible in Texas will add an anxiety to sex that will drastically undercut its joys. And don’t be surprised if casual sex outside of relationships becomes far more difficult to come by.
It’s clear: if the Legislature basically takes away a Texas woman’s right to choose, having sex becomes a much, much riskier proposition for women and men.

Now let’s see what AtB thinks of this. She writes:

Hey Ben.  BRO!  Sex is not primarily recreational and women’s bodies don’t exist to serve your every-72-hours-discharge needs.  Sex has life-creating properties, and this bill will make it harder for you to separate that reality from your weekend hook-ups.

(An aside. LADIES. You are a fool to chance a lifetime connection with a man-child of this caliber. You and your future children deserve MUCH better.  Free love has done so much damage to women and children. Sex without consequences makes us women exactly what we claim we don’t want to be. Objectified, disrespected and used.)

Unfortunately for you, Bro, the Texas House approved HB2 this morning.  Much to the silent rejoicing of the in-utero babies created in your “relationships with women that may have lasted anywhere from a few minutes to many years,” you might now have to act like a real man by living for someone other than yourself. Or perhaps, at least, stop treating women as sperm depositories.

I know that this legislation puts your Peter Pan lifestyle at risk.  But look at the bright side.  If your sexual expression is limited by this legislation, you could always move to one of the 49 states where unfettered infanticide paves the way for your never-ending, hedonistic sexual “freedom and choice”.

So this post by the man-child explains why pro-abortion men are pro-abortion. They basically think that they should be allowed to have recreational sex with a woman without having to deal with the consequences of their own actions. They think that it is OK to kill an innocent child aged 20 weeks or more in order to keep the flow of consequence-free recreational sex flowing. They think it’s OK to motivate women to give then free recreational sex by using abortion as a form of birth control. Pro-abortion men think that it’s OK to legalize what Kermit Gosnell was doing to women after 20 weeks, so that women continue to give them recreational sex without having to love and serve women in a lifelong commitment. Ben Sherman is the beneficiary of Kermit Gosnell’s practice. Kermit Gosnell is Ben’s enabler.

Before I go any further, let me say that according to the latest Gallup poll, more men are pro-life than not, and more women are pro-abortion than not. Young unmarried women are especially likely to vote for abortion and gay marriage (about 75% voted for Obama). This man-child Ben Sherman is the exception to the way that men normally are, while women on the other hand are more likely to agree with his conclusions about unborn children. Most young, unmarried women vote the way Ben Sherman votes. Let’s get that clear. This man-child is the exception to the way men normally are.

My real concern about the man-child’s point of view is this. How is it even possible that a woman would come within 10 feet of a man who said such a thing? It seems to me that women ought to prefer relationships with good men who have a worldview that grounds responsibility over hedonism. Women ought to prefer men who want to take responsibility for the well-being of others over the long term. Women ought to prefer men who want to protect the innocent and the weak. That sort of moral character used to be highly prized by women. Now they just seem to want “nice” – meaning inoffensive and entertaining.

When a man like Ben Sherman says what he said, it really makes me wonder about what women who choose him for sex are thinking about. When a woman pays attention to a man, she endorses his worldview. And vice versa. If women stopped talking to selfish, immoral men like Ben Sherman, then there would be no abortion. The man thinks that babies should die so that he can have a good time with no strings attached. He doesn’t want to have to deal with the needs of others, he would rather use them for pleasure and then kill them when they stop pleasing him. Is that attractive in a man? Ben Sherman continues in his views because some women are rewarding him with sex.

Abortion plays right into the hands of men who want to use women merely for sex. Legal abortion = more casual sex for men without the inconvenience of a relationship where they might need to think of the woman as a person instead of a means to sexual pleasure. I am concerned by the trend away from formal courtship towards anonymous hook-up sex. Abortion is definitely one of the reasons why that is happening. If the group of women who give men sex without commitment grows, it will put even more pressure on women who want marriage to do things the right way. It gets harder and harder for marriage-minded women to hold out as sex without commitment leads to sex without any meaningful communication. We need to push back against the trend to treat women as objects, and women have a role to play in that: they can refuse pro-abortion men.

UPDATE: Another reaction here from my pro-life friend Neil Simpson.

17 thoughts on “Bro-Choice: understanding the motivations of the pro-choice man-child”

  1. I’m sure he fits right in in Austin, the Berkley of Texas. Man-child is right. And he has the nerve to call the governor “slippery”? He seems pretty slimy himself. I knw there are women out there who date this knd of guy but for the life of me I cannot fathom why. This dude is a tool.

    Like

  2. I wholly agree with your point about free sex putting the squeeze on those women who are waiting for marriage-done-right. With so many women offering to men what previously was reserved for a life-long commitment, why would men commit? But these women who wait know they are worth more than a cheap fling (true empowerment). And they wait for this generation of man-children to grow up.

    Like

    1. Well, if it helps any, I’m well into my 30s now and still chaste! I think chastity is good for men, too. And just to be fair, there are a lot of good conservative young men who are struggling in a society that doesn’t like them very much. I don’t think we should be putting them down, but should instead be helping them up.

      Like

      1. Yes; rather than waiting for the playas and lotharios to grow up, best for women to forget them, and instead pursue opportunities for longer-term relationships than just ‘hook-ups’ with a better class of men, i.e. chaste ones like Wintery Knight, and striving to be chaste ones, like myself. Ones who are in it for the long haul.

        Of course, we may not be as exciting as the ‘bad boys’, and so women who aren’t thinking about their future, the long term, will naturally ignore us – which is good! I only hope that the women who say they are future-oriented truly are, and learn to ignore the bad boys, and give us possibly slightly less ‘exciting’ ones a second glance.

        Like

  3. WK. You know of my work so I’m sure you’ll support what I have here. I actually had my guest have to cancel on my podcast last Saturday, so on a two hour show, I spent the first hour and 40 minutes talking about this guy and two article he’d written. The link can be found here: http://www.blogtalkradio.com/grok558/2013/07/13/deeper-waters-coffee-house-apologetics

    I also wrote on it here: http://deeperwaters.wordpress.com/2013/07/12/abortion-your-sex-life-is-at-stake/

    From there, you can find the link to the article and see that I have left some comments.

    Maybe I’m odd, but I went about getting my sex life the old fashioned way. I dated a girl, when it came time asked her parents if I had their okay to have her hand, got that approval, proposed, then married her. Only then did we have sex. We don’t plan on having kids though due to our both having Asperger’s and the realization that a child would have a highly severe case. Still, we would also never abort if something went wrong.

    On the 24th of this month, we celebrate three years together and guys like Ben just make me sick. They don’t know what it means to have a real relationship with a real woman. No Ben. Meeting a woman for a few minutes of sex does not constitute a relationship. Ben needs to man up and learn that he can wade in the shallow waters of many shallow women, or dive deep into the ocean of one for life. Of course, one keeps learning that ocean better and better making your life better and better. Marriage is truly a beautiful thing for us all.

    Like

  4. The State (capital “S” State) which makes abortion legal – for whatever reason – has the same prerogative to make that same act illegal. It’s not a one-way street.

    Like

  5. …having sex becomes a much, much riskier proposition for women and men.

    Huh, like how it was in the past before the 21st century throughout human civilization?

    But these women who wait know they are worth more than a cheap fling (true empowerment). And they wait for this generation of man-children to grow up.

    I call BS. You reap what you sow–if society keeps up with the male bashing in movies, TV shows, etc. and continually tell men that masculinity is evil, immature, or brutish and if society continues to divorce-rape men in the courts as their wives file for no-fault divorce and siphon their money, resources, and kids away from them, what really is there left for men to invest in a long-term relationship within marriage?

    There just isn’t anything. Women scoff at men; they expect men to act like them and submit to them; they demand all of their rights with the responsibilities and repercussions only going to men. All in the name of “equality”.

    So of course you’re going to get man-children who live in their basements and get off on free porn; or men who are alternatively gaming the current progressive system for their own advantage.

    To tell them to “man up” anyway is pretty much equivalent telling them to say on command, “oh yes please, give me another please!” There is a small but growing number of people, both men and women, in the manosphere, but most men just fade into the shadows and either give up on women or society or both.

    You want to stop abortion? Try stopping feminism first. Laws don’t change the culture, but they do follow from it.

    Like

  6. You know, Wintery Knight, you really hit on something when you said that most men are pro-life and most women are pro-abortion. I think young women have been so indoctrinated into the belief that men are bad and women are good that they treat men as if they expect to be used and when they are, they feel validated in their belief. It’s a self-fulfilling prophecy that makes the need for abortion so necessary in their minds. And it encourages guys like Ben to continue acting as if the world is his sexual playground because, for all intents and purposes, it is.

    Women lament the lack of masculine men when they have gone out of their way to emasculate them. The fact that men are more pro-life than women seems to suggest that they are more interested in marriage and family than most women. The problem is that the modern woman doesn’t want to compromise in a marriage and insists that everything be on her terms. Guys like Ben make her think that things are on her terms, then he just uses her for his own sexual gratification and moves on.

    Like

  7. I agree with most of this post, but I would ask you, Wintery Knight, if you think the young William Lane Craig, who did not pursue a STEM degree, was a male worth marrying?

    Your dismissal of anything other than STEM as a line of work is a bit totalitarian, and I think you are being far too dismissive of many in the body of Christ who choose to serve in other ways. Placing Christians in STEM fields is vital, but there are many other places Christians need to be in the culture if we are to have the broadest impact for Christ on society.

    What about those who choose to fulfill the Great Commission in the most direct of ways, for instance, through Missionary work?

    Like

      1. So are you saying that, since Craig is an exception, other Christians should not bother to pursue degrees in philosophy? Craig is rightly pursuing a contrary strategy, trying to get more Christians into positions in the Academy so they can start affecting the next generation of students for Christ. Are you saying he should not undertake this project?

        Are Francis Schaeffer and other Christians wrong for encouraging Christians to pursue careers in the Arts? I don’t think so. Christians are getting creamed in the culture wars because they don’t have strong voices representing a Christian viewpoint in popular culture. Likewise, Conservatives get plastered in elections every four years because, as Mark Steyn points out, they spend a month before the first Tuesday in November trying to run issue ads while liberals have had the prior four years of total cultural saturation with their messages on TV, in film and in music. Christians and Conservatives will never win in such an environment. Our voices are drowned out because we don’t have enough Christians making viable popular art. We must rectify this, but your strategy won’t allow us to address this clear deficiency in our messaging.

        Was Paul wrong to hit the road as a missionary? Should he have stayed home and tried to make money instead? Are others who pursue the Great Commission in a similar way wasting their time by not getting STEM degrees and making $100k per year. Are you familiar with the concept of senders and goers? Your recommendation would produce a generation of senders with nobody to send and do the actual work.

        What you advocate has value, but you need to allow that there are many roles to play in the Body of Christ, and the Body is made up of people with diverse talents and roles to fill. Shoehorning everybody into the tiny sliver of reality that you prescribe, to the point of saying that all others are wasting their time, is not a winning strategy. I fully agree with your project to take a muscular Christianity into the public square with arguments and evidence at hand, but the Academy, the Arts, the Mission Field and many other branches of life are battlegrounds where we must take that same fight. To fail to do so would be to lose the war for sure.

        Like

        1. No, I am saying two things:

          First, this:
          “Anyone who does not provide for their relatives, and especially for their own household, has denied the faith and is worse than an unbeliever.”
          (1 Tim 5:8)

          And second, this:

          1. Petroleum Engineering
          Median starting salary: $97,900

          2. Chemical Engineering
          Median starting salary: $64,5000

          3. Electrical Engineering
          Median starting salary: $61,300

          4. Materials Science and Engineering
          Median starting salary: $60,400

          5. Aerospace Engineering
          Median starting salary: $60,700

          6. Computer Engineering
          Median starting salary: $61,800

          7. Physics
          Median starting salary: $49,800

          8. Applied Mathematics
          Median starting salary: $52,600

          9. Computer Science
          Median starting salary: $56,600

          10. Nuclear Engineering
          Median starting salary:$65,100

          Source:
          http://jobs.aol.com/articles/2011/08/22/10-highest-paying-degrees/

          Now you decide what you think is best based on what the Bible says and based on what wisdom says.

          Like

          1. Wintery,

            If you are going to use this verse for your point you need to define your terms, specifically the meaning of “provide”. Provide means “to care for”, and some translations render it that way. And of course men should care for and provide for their families.

            But “provide” here certainly does not mean “provide lots of wealth”, which is what your post implies. Provide can mean a lot of things, but being wealthy cannot be its “one size fits all” definition for all Christians. After all, Paul himself was a poor Missionary! He was a highly educated guy who could have been very successful financially only to hit the mission field instead. Your paradigm leaves no room for Paul. Another reason I know that “provide” can’t mean “become rich”, particularly in a “one size fits all” sense, is that our Lord Himself instructed some rich men to sell everything they had, give all their money to the poor and follow Him! So if Jesus is suggesting that means of following Him to some people then it must follow that not every Christian is meant to be rich.

            You are doing a great thing with this blog, educating and convincing others of the necessity of learning and using Apologetics and Christian Evidences with vigor in the public square. You are absolutely right about that, and you have no doubt influenced many of the need to take up this fight, including myself.

            But you need to recognize that your thinking on this particular point is too narrow. By saying that all Christians must pick a STEM degree and become wealthy you are contradicting not only common sense but Scripture, which gives us many examples of faithful Christians following a walk that did not involve a quest to make large sums of money. One thing that has become apparent to me in my Christian walk is that God does not do things in a “one size fits all” manner. The way people come to Faith, relate to God, serve the Lord, etc. varies a great deal. God certainly loves variety! It is very clear that the Body of Christ has many members with many unique gifts and many roles to fill. Your prescription would weaken the body of Christ by denying it influence in many parts of the culture that STEM degrees do not reach. We need Bill Craigs filling the Academy. We need C.S. Lewis’ writing literature. We need somebody making films, television and music that appeals on a popular level. We need Missionaries. And yes, we need professionals in STEM degrees to provide funds for our Missionaries and support for our professional Apologists and culture warriors.

            An Army does not have only one kind of soldier.

            Like

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

w

Connecting to %s