Anna March, a self described deep-seated feminist writing in Salon thinks it is time to Make Fatherhood a Man’s Choice. This is puzzling given her personal history.
My Mother was unable to obtain an illegal abortion, though she tried, in 1967 when she learned she was pregnant with me. Instead, she attempted paternity fraud—passing me off to her boyfriend as his child though I was actually fathered by another man. Her boyfriend, who became my putative father, married her and then clued in when I was born, totally healthy, three months “prematurely.” He went along with it, though.
As the article progresses and despite her history she advocates that the “reproductive choice” of women should also extend to men confronted with an unplanned or unwanted pregnancy:
…if one believes that women shouldn’t be penalized for sexual activity by limiting options such as birth control, abortion, adoption, and safe haven laws (laws that provide a safe space for parents to give up babies), then men’s options shouldn’t be limited either…motherhood should be a voluntary condition…the construct that fatherhood after birth is mandatory needs to change.
The author shares some ideas how this could work and some feminist backlash against such proposals. However given the worldview of pro abortion feminists, this is a reasonable and just application of “choice” to men who do not accept their fatherhood.
Yet…without the child support of her mother’s ex husband (who it turns out was not the biological father), the family would have been destitute:
They divorced when I was six years old, but he paid child support until I was eighteen, $270 a month. I’m a product of child support, and it was a necessary part of the financial picture for me and my Mom, who did not have a college education and often worked two jobs during my childhood.
So this guy who is not the father, and learns of this fact, still pays support until Anna is 18!
With all the Screwtape Letter logic that pervades this article…we have a man who really understood his obligation to his family. We don’t know the broader history of Anna’s step-father or the relationship of this young couple and I am not making him a saint.
But in an article where the author is proposing that men embrace the hyper-individualism of choice when deciding if they want to father their unborn children, her step-father actually emerges as a hero in this tale. He could have walked away angry that his wife deceived him and refused to support little Anna. But instead he faithfully supported the family and in so doing allowed Anna’s mom to work two jobs, balance a very tight budget and provide for her daughter.
But Anna March has been drinking a lot of pro choice feminist Kool-Aid.
March tells us that at the time of her mother’s unplanned pregnancy, the father of the child should have been given a grace period where he could opt out of parenting and child support. The mother would then have the option of either aborting her, or making an adoption plan.
Yet this author, who was “allowed” to be born…would have been aborted if she was conceived after 1973! And this is fine with Anna March. Because abortion was illegal and not widely available…Anna is alive today. But we need to keep abortion legal, and widely accessible she tells us.
What value does this author place on her own life, if it could have been so arbitrarily destroyed while she was developing in her mother’s womb? But she is ok with this absurdity because she has to be consistent with her pro abortion feminism.
Sadly, the abortion rights movements, and the twisted values of the sexual revolution that support the whole abortion rights construct, have corrupted feminism. But it has also corrupted the relationship between parents and children, men and women, fathers and mothers.
A healthy feminism advocates for support and resources for women facing unplanned pregnancies, and the accountability of fathers to support their children. But when you introduce abortion as a non negotiable tenet of feminism, you twist and corrupt the heart of the very relationships you seek to protect. Anna March thinks it is perfectly acceptable that as a tiny female fetus her bigger and stronger mother and father had the right to end her life in the womb…even if it meant dismembering her little body limb by limb as you find in later term abortions.
Is there any greater proof that this is an ideology rooted in nihilistic despair?
There is a better way. It does not romanticize or simplify the challenges that women face in times of crisis and uncertainty. But neither does it exploit women and men and lead them to the illusion of God-like autonomy over life and death and a hyper individualism that comes with a very high price tag.
There was another individual conceived like Anna March in very complex and anxiety-filled circumstances.
He had this to say:
Do not let your hearts be troubled. You have faith in God; have faith also in me… I am the way and the truth and the life. (John 14: 6)
May God deliver us all from the nihilism of this age…and lead us to embrace the joy-filled hope found in the salvation of Christ Jesus.