Playing Abortion Chess

Potent Feminist Weapon

In the Seinfeld episode called “The Couch,” there’s a famous scene in which Elaine and Jerry are sitting in Poppie’s restaurant, awaiting the duck Jerry ordered days in advance. Elaine expresses great anticipation about partaking of the vaunted fowl, while ever-cynical Jerry grumbles that he would be just as happy eating a Paccino’s pizza at home. In disgust, Elaine promptly announces her boycott of Paccino’s—because of its anti-abortion owner. To test Elaine’s policy, Jerry summons Poppie to their table to opine on the matter. Upon hearing Poppie vociferously denounce abortion, Elaine storms out of the restaurant, followed by the other outraged female patrons—with their annoyed husbands and boyfriends, still eating the meals they had purchased, in tow.

The imagery of this restaurant scene—strident feminists dictating the lives and destinies of men—is an accurate metaphor for life in the USA. And, no issue galvanizes feminists and gives them more power over men than abortion. Far more than a medical procedure, abortion is a potent feminist weapon in the political game of chess. Let me state for the record that I support abortion but reject “pro-choice,” a misnomer, as the way to characterize it.

Pro-choice is a politically correct, feminist term that really means pro-woman. It conveys upon women all reproductive rights and choices. The Roe v. Wade decision of the US Supreme Court gives women the exclusive power to opt out of parenthood. Accordingly, because Roe v. Wade violates the equal-protection clause of the US Constitution’s 14^th Amendment, the National Center for Men, on March 9, 2006, filed a lawsuit called Roe v. Wade for Men^TM—asking the federal government to recognize and uphold a man’s equal right to make reproductive choice, to decline fatherhood in the event of an unintended pregnancy. The National Organization for Women (NOW), of course, immediately repudiated this lawsuit—equality for men is the last thing NOW wants.

In any American election, a politician must avow his “pro-choice” stance to get elected or reelected. A nominee to the US Supreme Court must articulate his acceptance and support of the Roe v. Wade decision, if he expects the US Senate to consent to his nomination and the feminists not to pillory him.

Then, there is the matter of parental notification in cases when pregnant minors seek to have abortions. As parents in many states have learned, if, through special elections or referenda, they demand such notification, NOW will fight them. State supreme courts, such as the one in California, have ruled that a girl’s right to privacy supersedes her parents’ right to be parents. Yet, this same minor needs her parents’ permission to take medication in school or to get her ears pierced. This insanity illustrates that it is abortion NOW cares about, not the lives or traumas or families of young, pregnant girls.

From the aforementioned Seinfeld episode, elections, Supreme Court nominations, and parental-notification battles, one might get the impression that: 1) feminists control the national agenda, 2) feminists speak for all women, and 3) abortion is the number-one issue for all women. Are these points true?

Let’s compare NOW bosses to union bosses, whose main agenda is job-preservation. Union bosses formerly controlled both the national agenda and the players. NOW still controls the national agenda and the players—it delivers female votes by scaring women and legislative votes by blackmailing “skeletons-in-the-closet” senators into passing anti-male legislation.

NOW leaders, like their union brethren, to this day wrongly believe that they speak for the rank and file. Hardly. If women were so fanatical about abortions, the out-of-wedlock birthrate would be zero, wouldn’t it? Instead of abortions, hordes of women are selfishly and fraudulently choosing single motherhood—out of narcissism and for the child support.

The Road to Fraudulent Maternity

The Alan Guttmacher Institute estimates that there were 744,600 US abortions in 1973, 1.6 million in 1990 (the peak year), and 1.3 million in 2004. Yet, the US population rose 45% in that 31-year period, from 203 million to 294 million. The Brookings Institution claims that, in 1965, the out-of-wedlock birthrates were 24% and 3.1% for blacks and whites, respectively. Those figures grew by 1990 to 64% and 18%, respectively. Now, they are 70% and 35%, respectively. Abortions, relative to population growth, are decreasing, while illegitimate births are rising. Creating fatherless homes is trendy!

In the course of everyday life, tort laws provide remedies to protect us from those who would mislead and defraud us, such as unscrupulous bankers, retailers, realtors, car dealers, and contractors. If, however, a woman makes false claims about her fertility or use of birth control, tort law hides under the proverbial desk, with family courts offering men this warning: caveat fornicator.

For those who don’t grasp that, in the US, women own most of the civil rights, have little regard for men, and are likely to choose child support over abortion, allow me to expose their three-phase path to “legalized” fraudulent maternity. Yes, thanks to feminist sycophants, family courts everywhere permit and encourage women to become unwed mothers, and reward them—at the expense of men—for their irresponsible behavior, as follows:

Three “Twisted” Phases of Legalized Fraudulent Maternity

1. DisTORTION: twisting the facts of her fertility and use of birth control
2. ConTORTION: twisting her body into amazing positions during sex
3. ExTORTION: twisting his wallet through 18 years of child support.

Male Guilt

To fathom the genesis of American misandry, I look to Shelby Steele, a black research fellow at the Hoover Institution of Stanford University. Dr. Steele authored White Guilt: How Blacks and Whites Together Destroyed the Promise of the Civil Rights Era. Steele claims that, because of history, whites are forever stigmatized as racists and accused of “blaming the victims” if they encourage blacks to engage in hard work, self-reliance, and moral responsibility. Because of “white guilt,” blacks continue to play victims, receive deferential treatment from whites, and make excuses for not growing.

Strident feminism has analogously stigmatized men, also effecting a destructive outcome: lawmakers, governors, presidents, judges, and jurists have “male guilt.” They erroneously view women as “victims,” defer to them, and tolerate their excuses for not growing—perpetuating the endless cycle of unwed motherhood and blaming men for their mistakes.

I fantasize about the governor of a prominent US state, pen in hand, in front of microphones, journalists, and cameras at this bill-signing ceremony:

“It is my honor to sign into law today the Responsible Mother Act of 2008. We are ending the disgraceful pandemic of fatherless homes and fraudulent maternity. From this day forward, unwed mothers-to-be have two choices: abortion, a critical female right, or raising and supporting their children alone without child support. Women choosing single motherhood will sign certificates of selfishness, a copy of which each child, upon attaining the age of 16, will receive. The era of rewarding miscreant moms for their irresponsibility, anti-male fraud, and selfishness is hereby terminated.”

When writing my book, I coined this marketing tagline: Life with her needn’t be an endless game of chess^TM. Originally, I meant it to warn men not to waste time and energy with women whose actions, words, and thoughts must be anticipated five iterations in advance. But, I now see another parallel. First, the objective of chess is to debilitate the king by cornering him and removing his options. Second, the queen is the most-powerful piece on the board. Third, the least-powerful pieces, the pawns, resemble children whom mothers bear and sacrifice solely to gain child support. It’s as if NOW invented chess!

NoNonsense Bottom Line

Abortion is a critical option to prevent unwanted children, ruined lives, and destroyed livelihoods. Yet, women do not universally use this option, as it is not their number-one issue—despite what NOW says. Not to worry: feminists created the child-support industry, too. They covered all the bases, but they never use child support as a litmus test for a Supreme Court nominee. Only abortion. When feminists claim to speak for all women, they are lying. Abortion, for the feminists, is a powerful means to checkmate men. It’s worked so far.

Before having sexual intercourse, men and women must discuss what they will do in the case of an unintended pregnancy. Keep in mind that the woman can lie in this discussion. If you don’t trust her answer, or if she desires to bear a child you don’t want, put your pants back on and leave.

When men gain the equal right to opt out of unintended pregnancies, women who unilaterally choose motherhood will become solely responsible for raising and supporting those children. Then, the out-of-wedlock birthrate will plummet, and abortion just may peter out as a useful weapon in political chess.

About the Author

Marc H. Rudov is an investment banker and business consultant residing in Silicon Valley, CA. He is the author of 27 articles and the book, The Man’s No-Nonsense Guide to Women: How to Succeed in Romance on Planet Earth^TM (ISBN 0974501719).

Rudov’s book, articles, blog, and podcasts are available at http://www.thenononsenseman.com/.

Copyright © 2006 by Marc H. Rudov. All rights reserved.