Replies

If you simply make live childbearing a total loss for unmarried women, you will guarantee a huge upsurge in abortion. Not only is this morally repugnant in itself, it would also have the effect of causing a dramatic population collapse in the USA, bankrupting our social institutions (beginning with Social Security and Medicare, which are already teetering on the edge -- but eventually all of our institutions), and gaining a great victory for the establishment of the Islamic Caliphate of America.

You operate on the assumption that the children of unmarried mothers are a net asset to the United States, and that we would be worse off without them. While there are many wonderful, productive offspring of unmarried women, they are overshadowed by the criminal element that comes disproportionately from unmarried households. Eliminating them would eliminate a huge drain on government money.

Let me agreee with you that marital childbearing is much more socially constructive than nonmarital childbearing, for a whole lot of reasons. The marriage-based family is the only truly suitable way to procreate and raise children.

Nevertheless, dropping the USA's already-low fertility rate by 40% would be awful and probably irreparable. Even bastardy is better than sterility.

Do we agree that marriage as the indispensible context for sex is the way to go? Then the question is, what are the intermediate steps?

I'm all ears. I don't have a whole "program for social recontruction" up my sleeve (whsh I did!) but I remain convinced that suspending any enforcement of unmarried fathers' liability for their own children is not a constuctive step from a practical point of view.I also dooubt that anyone has authorized to relinquish their child's natural right to have the support of his or her father.