Blogs
Featured Image
AbortionShutterstock

(LifeSiteNews) — As Roe v. Wade heads toward a Supreme Court reckoning, the abortion wars are heating up. We don’t know if Roe will go, of course — some watchers think yes, others no — but abortion activists certainly think so. There are already plans to put an underground abortion network in place; to distribute abortion pills to states with pro-life laws; to defy any legislation enshrining rights for pre-born children. In the process, the masks are coming off and abortion activists are beginning to admit what we always knew: The right to kill children in the womb is necessary for sexual liberation.

Sure, most activists and media figures will use the tiny number of cases where sexual assault has occurred or other heartbreaking circumstances in order to pretend that “pro-choice” is about compassion rather than convenience. But that has never been true, and that is becoming increasingly obvious.

Consider, for example, the outrage in the media right now over a U.S. Supreme Court brief observing something that previous generations of human beings understood: Sex makes babies. From The Huffington Post:

The key architect of the radical new Texas anti-abortion law has argued in a U.S. Supreme Court brief that women can avoid pregnancy by simply avoiding sex.

The stunning argument was presented by attorney Jonathan Mitchell in a friend-of-the-court brief this summer supporting a restrictive Mississippi law denying women the right to an abortion after 15 weeks of pregnancy. The brief also argued that Roe v. Wade should be overruled.

“Women can ‘control their reproductive lives’ without access to abortion; they can do so by refraining from sexual intercourse,” Mitchell, a former Texas solicitor general, lectured in the brief, which was first reported by The Guardian.

Despite decades of sex education in public schools, it is apparently “stunning” to observe the obvious. It is indisputably true that sex makes babies. It is also true that pregnancy can be avoided if sex is avoided (and, of course, through a variety of other practices.) The brief noted that an “individual can simply change their behavior … if she no longer wants to take the risk of an unwanted pregnancy,” observing that the only times this is not the case is in instances of sexual assault.

The abortion debate, as you can see, is not about difficult circumstances. It is about sexual freedom. My only objection to that wording would be the fact that it puts too much onus on the woman — a better wording would be that “people” or “men and women” can control their reproductive lives without abortion, as the abortion rate would plunge overnight if men agreed to care for and support the children they fathered. Abortion allows men and women to use each other. Adults get the sex; children pay the price; the abortion industry makes a killing.

Perhaps the only humorous part of the backlash to the Texas Heartbeat Act was the number of abortion activists furiously demanding that pro-lifers be consistent in their beliefs by ensuring that men cannot abandon women and their children. Which, as it turns out, is precisely what pro-lifers want. There have been plenty of dry rejoinders from pro-lifers: “Congratulations, you’ve invented marriage.”

 

Liz Plank, for example, tweeted: “Behind millions of successful men is an abortion they don’t regret getting with their partner. I urge men to go beyond solidarity and talk about how they’ve personally benefited from abortion rights too. Not because it’s the right thing to do, because it’s true!” Alright, deadbeat dads — you’re up!

As pro-life ethicist Charlie Camosy put it on Twitter: “We should talk as much as possible about how much prenatal violence is driven explicitly by men and structurally serves the interests of those who do not get pregnant. Not just because it is true, but because it’s an important way into the issue for many, many folks.”

The best response to the Heartbeat Act was abortion activists suggesting that pro-abortion women go on a sex strike—as if that would teach pro-lifers a lesson? Democrat Pam Keith tweeted: “It would be AWESOME if all over TX, there was a mass exodus of women from all dating apps. By the million, TX women should delete Bumble, hinge, tinder, match and all the others. TX men need to see the women’s profiles go dark.”

One response to Keith’s stroke of genius summed it up perfectly: “Periodically progressives reverse engineer healthy sexual behavior and they act like they’ve discovered Atlantis.” In other words, we agree with Keith that it would be fantastic if that were to happen.

Sex can make babies. Men and women should understand this, and behave accordingly.

Featured Image

Jonathon Van Maren is a public speaker, writer, and pro-life activist. His commentary has been translated into more than eight languages and published widely online as well as print newspapers such as the Jewish Independent, the National Post, the Hamilton Spectator and others. He has received an award for combating anti-Semitism in print from the Jewish organization B’nai Brith. His commentary has been featured on CTV Primetime, Global News, EWTN, and the CBC as well as dozens of radio stations and news outlets in Canada and the United States.

He speaks on a wide variety of cultural topics across North America at universities, high schools, churches, and other functions. Some of these topics include abortion, pornography, the Sexual Revolution, and euthanasia. Jonathon holds a Bachelor of Arts Degree in history from Simon Fraser University, and is the communications director for the Canadian Centre for Bio-Ethical Reform.

Jonathon’s first book, The Culture War, was released in 2016.