Tag Archives: Feminist

Abortion debate: a secular case against legalized abortion

Unborn baby scheming about being only two months old
Unborn baby scheming about being only two months old

Note: this post has a twin! Its companion post on a secular case against gay marriage is here.

Now, you may think that the view that the unborn deserve protection during pregnancy is something that you either take on faith or not. But I want to explain how you can make a case for the right to life of the unborn, just by using reason and evidence.

To defend the pro-life position, I think you need to sustain 3 arguments:

  1. The unborn is a living being with human DNA, and is therefore human.
  2. There is no morally-relevant difference between an unborn baby, and one already born.
  3. None of the justifications given for terminating an unborn baby are morally adequate.

Now, the pro-abortion debater may object to point 1, perhaps by claiming that the unborn baby is either not living, or not human, or not distinct from the mother.

Defending point 1: Well, it is pretty obvious that the unborn child is not inanimate matter. It is definitely living and growing through all 9 months of pregnancy. (Click here for a video that shows what a baby looks like through all 9 months of pregnancy). Since it has human DNA, that makes it a human. And its DNA is different from either its mother or father, so it clearly not just a tissue growth of the father or the mother. More on this point at Christian Cadre, here. An unborn child cannot be the woman’s own body, because then the woman would have four arms, four legs, two heads, four eyes and two different DNA signatures. When you have two different human DNA signatures, you have two different humans.

Secondly, the pro-abortion debater may try to identify a characteristic of the unborn that is not yet present or developed while it is still in the womb, and then argue that because the unborn does not have that characteristic, it does not deserve the protection of the law.

Defending point 2: You need to show that the unborn are not different from the already-born in any meaningful way. The main differences between them are: size, level of development, environment and degree of dependence. Once these characteristics are identified, you can explain that none of these differences provide moral justification for terminating a life. For example, babies inside and outside the womb have the same value, because location does not change a human’s intrinsic value.

Additionally, the pro-abortion debater may try to identify a characteristic of the already-born that is not yet present or developed in the unborn, and then argue that because the unborn does not have that characteristic, that it does not deserve protection, (e.g. – sentience). Most of the these objections that you may encounter are refuted in this essay by Francis Beckwith. Usually these objections fall apart because they assume the thing they are trying to prove, namely, that the unborn deserves less protection than the already born.

Finally, the pro-abortion debater may conceded your points 1 and 2, and admit that the unborn is fully human. But they may then try to provide a moral justification for terminating the life of the unborn, regardless.

Defending point 3: I fully grant that it is sometimes justifiable to terminate an innocent human life, if there is a moral justification. Is there such a justification for abortion? One of the best known attempts to justify abortion is Judith Jarvis Thomson’s “violinist” argument. This argument is summarized by Paul Manata, one of the experts over at Triablogue:

Briefly, this argument goes like this: Say a world-famous violinist developed a fatal kidney ailment and the Society of Music Lovers found that only you had the right blood-type to help. So, they therefore have you kidnapped and then attach you to the violinist’s circulatory system so that your kidneys can be used to extract the poison from his. To unplug yourself from the violinist would be to kill him; therefore, pro-lifers would say a person has to stay attached against her will to the violinist for 9 months. Thompson says that it would be morally virtuous to stay plugged-in. But she asks, “Do you have to?” She appeals to our intuitions and answers, “No.”

Manata then goes on to defeat Thomson’s proposal here, with a short, memorable illustration, which I highly recommend that you check out. More info on how to respond to similar arguments is here.

Here is the best book for beginners on the pro-life view.

For those looking for advanced resources, Francis Beckwith, a professor at Baylor University, published the book Defending Life, with Cambridge University Press, 2007.

What the nomination of Amy Coney Barrett communicates to secular left feminists

Amy Coney Barrett, her husband and her 7 children
Amy Coney Barrett, her husband and her 7 children in the Oval Office

Here’s an article from The Federalist by my favorite Federalist writer, Joy Pullmann, where she lists 9 feminist lies that were smashed by the nomination of Amy Coney Barrett:

  • Women Need Abortion to Succeed
  • Children Make You Unhappy
  • Women Must Repress Their Fertility to Succeed
  • Religious People and Conservatives Are Anti-Sex
  • Women Don’t Need Men
  • Christianity Oppresses Women
  • Conservatives Hate Women
  • Women Should Prioritize Career Over Family
  • Women Are Oppressed

The article is excellent. I will just focus on the one part that I thought was the most interesting:

Marriage is the epitome of the cooperation of the sexes, yet the left treats it as unnecessary at best and harmful at worst. The Black Lives Matter organization, for example, which has been supported by millions in donations and thousands of endorsements from CEOs and Democrat politicians, in its policy platform openly attacked “heteronormative” “nuclear families.”

Gloria Steinem, the apostle of feminism, popularized the phrase “A woman needs a man like a fish needs a bicycle.” Leftism and feminism pit the sexes against each other, while conservatism and Christianity recognize that the sexes are interdependent. This recognition brings humankind joy instead of hatred.

Fathers are crucial to the happiness and well-being of every child, a need that only intensifies with the addition of each child. Barrett’s husband Jesse is a full partner in their marriage with his own significant career. Barrett recognized her husband’s major contributions to their family and her happiness in her nomination acceptance speech Saturday night.

I couldn’t manage this very full life without the unwavering support of my husband Jesse. At the start of our marriage, I imagined that we would run our household as partners. As it has turned out, Jesse does far more than his share of the work. To my chagrin, I learned at dinner recently that my children consider him to be the better cook. For 21 years, Jesse has asked me every single morning what he can do for me that day. And though I almost always say ‘Nothing,’ he still finds ways to take things off my plate. And that’s not because he has a lot of free time—he has a busy law practice. It’s because he has a superb and generous husband, and I am very fortunate.

Given her description, I think it’s accurate to guess Barrett and her husband’s interdependence is a source of strength and joy to them both, as well as to their children and community. They have undoubtedly achieved much more together than they could have separately, as many highly successful women will also tell you of their marriages. Our husbands are our sometimes-secret weapon.

Feminists don’t like any of Joy’s 9 points, though.

Feminism is what a woman believes after she has smashed herself up by having sex with bad boys. Bad boy failures makes her think that all men are unreliable. She likes abortion because it allows her to chase the bad boys she is attracted to. When she learns how bad boys are unreliable, she intentionally delays marriage to focus on her career and pay off all her student loans. But, if a woman avoids bad boys, and instead chooses a good husband who supports her, she can have 5 kids and adopt 2 more and not have all that bitterness. With a good husband, and a network of supportive relatives, she can even get on the Supreme Court.

I prefer that young women study for a STEM degree, and try to avoid student loans with community college, scholarships, living at home, summer jobs, etc. I recommend they work until their first child arrives. After that, they should stay home with the children, at least for the first 3 years of each child’s life. And obviously, having more children leads to a bigger legacy than fewer children. I’m also a strong supporter of homeschooling. I don’t have much confidence in Christian schools, private schools and especially public schools.

However, in the special case of women like Amy Coney Barrett, who can make a huge difference in the world for the good of conservatives and Christians, then it may be possible, with an excellent husband and many willing relatives, to have a safety net for the children that allows her to do something that will protect us all from the secular left. This is not the ordinary case, of course. This is 1% of the 1% of the 1%. There is no doubt that her children will suffer from her decision to have a career. But if she makes a Supreme Court decision that protects the unborn, or safeguards self-defense rights, or preserves religious liberty, it will be worth it. I don’t think this is the ordinary case. I don’t support mothers of young children having ordinary careers just to make money, because usually the young children have to be placed with strangers.

My goal for my wife was that she be a stay at home wife and mother, at least while we have any children under 3, and preferably under 5. I wouldn’t have liked to have a wife who served on the Supreme Court. I wouldn’t want to share my wife with co-workers, because of the way I was raised. But I can understand why it is a good thing for me (and for conservatives and Christians) that she is the nominee.

Judge: man must pay support to girlfriend despite living in separate homes

A friend of mine was asking me last night whether I had any regrets about never marrying, especially since I had such awesome Christian female friends like her. I thought about it, and I thought that maybe it is better to not have married, especially when I read stories about how family courts trample over the rights of men to favor women, regardless of what the law says.

The story is from one of Canada’s national newspapers, the National Post:

A wealthy businessman will have to pay more than $50,000 a month in spousal support for 10 years to a woman with whom he had a long-term romantic relationship even though they kept separate homes and had no children together, Ontario’s top court has ruled.

Under Ontario law, an unmarried couple are considered common-law spouses if they have cohabited — lived together in a conjugal relationship — continuously for at least three years. But that doesn’t necessarily mean living in the same home, the court found.

[…]When their 14-year relationship finally broke down in May 2015, Climans asked the courts to recognize her as Latner’s spouse and order him to pay her support. He argued she had been a travel companion and girlfriend, nothing more. As such, he said, they were never legally spouses and he owed no support. An eight-day trial ensued.

In her decision in February 2019, Superior Court Justice Sharon Shore sided with Climans. She ruled they were in fact long-time spouses, finding that despite their separate home, they lived under one roof at Latner’s cottage for part of the summer, and during winter vacations in Florida. Shore ordered him to pay her $53,077 monthly indefinitely.

The judge ordered him to pay her $53,077 per moth, indefinitely. Elsewhere in the article, we learn that he had asked her to sign a pre-nuptial agreement many times, and each time she refused. (Those are not even enforced fairly by the way) She wanted his money, and the judge made sure she got it. Because the law doesn’t matter in a family court.

So, what I wanted to point out about this is the fact that a female judge decided to bend the law in order to favor a woman. And this sort of thing happens A LOT in Canada – where their female judges are notorious for progressive judicial activism, e.g. Beverley Mclachlin, Bertha Wilson, Claire L’Heureux-Dubé, etc. Ontario family courts are notoriously anti-male, and men know this.

But it’s not just Ontario. I have two Christian friends who married their Christian wives as virgins, and then their wives divorced them. I heard what happened to them in divorce court. Again, female lawyers and female judges disregarded the law in order to punish the man and favor the woman. And I think most men growing up today have a father or a brother or an uncle or someone who has been a victim of this.

When I talk to women about this, they all say things like this to me: “oh, you worry too much” or “you read too many books about divorce” or especially “when you meet the right girl, you’ll fall in love, and all this concern about atheistic feminist judges in the courts won’t stop you”. That last one is the most popular. And it’s always made me think that if this is how women see commitment – feelings-based – it’s no wonder that women initiate 70% of divorces.

I always thought it was a curse that I grew up poor and could not afford to show off my wealth in order to attract attention from women. Now I see that God actually gave me a great blessing. In order for a man to get married, it takes a lot more than finding the right girl. He needs to live in the right culture – a culture that tries to equip women to be content in committed relationships and treat men fairly.

I don’t think even women who claim to be pro-male and/or pro-marriage know or care how stories like this affect men. I’m very wealthy. I certainly do look at what is likely to happen if a woman goes to the courts expecting me to give her money. In fact, whenever I post stories on my wall about how the judges legislate from the bench to transfer money from men to women, there’s just silence or sometimes deflection by attacking men (except for my friend Dina who agrees with me). No one dares to speak up for men, it’s just expected that we be robbed by the government in order to make women happy. Because “marriage is for women”.

And as long as the message keeps being sent by judicial activists in the family courts, men will keep adjusting how they treat women. Women appear very unsafe to us, and nothing that’s going on in the courts is changing the trend towards avoidance. Men are very good at calculating risks vs rewards.