Clark salutes smartly!
Gary Aldrich (archive)
& Ashley N. Varner
January 14, 2004 | Print | Send
Democrat presidential candidate Wesley Clark recently spelled out his position on abortion for the Manchester Union Leader. “Life,” General Clark proclaims, “begins with the mother’s decision.”
OK, let’s work with this a little bit. While General Clark is out invading countries and taking lives, he’ll leave the other decisions in his life and the lives in his own family to the ladies. Is that about right? Clearly, General Clark is embracing the pro-choice position that men, for a variety of reasons, have no say in the birth of an infant, or in its death – even if that death occurs one minute before what would have been a natural delivery.
Can we assume General Clark is saying he would be helpless in the face of the partial-birth abortion of his own grandchild – if that horrible circumstance were present – and then we are to believe he would simply agree with it, if that’s what the women want?
Since before Roe v. Wade, feminists and the few men who agree with them have been reducing man’s power, as well as his role in the family. But most men, we would wager, do not look behind the Pro-Choice Movement to find the real agenda, which is purely political. It’s too easy, especially for our youth, to see abortion as merely a medical procedure that bails out a man who has mistakenly inseminated a female, especially when there is no long-term commitment envisioned with that female.
It’s true he probably wanted to go to bed with her, but it’s also true that she could have said, “No”.
He knows that if she decides to carry his child to full term, he’s likely to get the bill for support, even though the legal system gives control of the access to the child, in most all cases, to the mother. He likewise has no say if she decides to live with another man, or kick him out and bring a step-father into the picture – the father still gets the bill. He gets the bill even if the step-father is a drunken, worthless lout who squanders the family’s money, including the child support!
In our society today, a woman can decide to become pregnant, and remarkably has no legal obligation to warn her sexual partner that she’s fertile, even though she’s the only one who could possibly know, and probably does know.
The science and education is not only available, but force-fed into our school children to teach them the simplicity of the average woman’s cycle. Thus solves most mysteries about how one becomes pregnant, and when. Yet, when a woman does get pregnant, society pretends she has no responsibility and the cause is all a big mystery.
We contend she has more responsibility, not less. But if we ever begin to teach that, women will lose negotiating power and their precious victim status – something feminists will not stand for.
Schools teach our kids how to place a condom on a cucumber, but how much time is spent reminding our young ladies that they can know fairly accurately those days when, if they have intercourse, they will likely conceive?
With today’s knowledge, if a woman agrees or in many cases invites or even initiates intercourse, she is not having an accident, but making a choice. There is no good excuse for becoming pregnant, unless she is an imbecile or has been forced.
If forced to have intercourse, then absolutely a woman has the right and the power to accuse the man of rape. Absent rape and imbecility, there aren’t many excuses for conceiving an unwanted child.
And yet, feminists insist that because women are victims and because it’s all a mistake for which they have no responsibility, they have the absolute final say in whether or not the jointly-conceived child lives or dies. Even in the case of marriage, the husband has no rights – the courts have held – to stop his wife from killing his own baby.
The courts reason, we guess, that he can simply divorce her if he doesn’t like the “choices” she makes. But this position does not cure the many situations where there are children already in the marriage. He cannot simply get rid of a spouse who has just killed his child without facing the prospect that she will take legal revenge and punish him by denying access to his kids, and demanding child support, and in many cases alimony.
Such a deal! Is it any wonder that with this wild imbalance of power, many young men today are having second and third thoughts about getting married? Who can blame the average young man for being hesitant, when divorce rates are in the neighborhood of 50%, and it’s a well-known fact that more than 60% of all divorces are filed by women!
Conservatives who try to push abstinence programs in schools are fought every inch of the way for their old-fashioned solution to preventing unwanted pregnancy. Liberals apparently prefer to believe most women are weak and stupid – and are bound to become pregnant, so why not provide them with some basic “tools” that allow them to behave as the barnyard animals they really are, then have an abortion – which is becoming even easier now, thanks to these morning-after pills.
Our culture has turned sex into a fun toy for post-adolescents, and the Liberals have promoted no-fault divorce while encouraging no-guilt promiscuity.
Women pulled off this amazing hijacking of power from men by simply understanding the mentality of the average guy – he just wants to be loved. The average guy has also bought into the myth that women and mothers are the best ones to decide the fates of our children. Maybe they used to be.
In view of the millions of babies terminated each year by these “caring, loving” mothers, men as a group ought to rethink the “Mother knows best” myth, and start taking back some of that power they’ve given away, so children can really be protected.
If you believe polls, the majority of women still value life. They can do their part by promoting the notion that women are indeed responsible for being alert to their own fertility, because if they did, most pregnancies could be prevented. Conservatives have settled for a ban on partial-birth abortion. This position is an unwarranted and unsatisfactory compromise, and does nothing but undermine a husband’s and father’s ability to be of significance in his own home.
Wesley Clark wants to keep this unhappy situation in place. I guess Mr. Clark is satisfied that in his case he can be general of an army, but only a private in his own home.
Gary Aldrich is president and founder of The Patrick Henry Center for Individual Liberty, a Townhall.com member group.
©2003 Gary W. Aldrich |
