Posted on 11/04/2021 11:48:37 AM PDT by Morgana
On October 30th, People ran a story as part of their ‘Women’s Choices, Women’s Voices’ “stories from abortion-seekers” campaign, featuring the example of a Texas woman named Mariah Armonta, a single mom of three living children, with her youngest being just nine months old. When she took a pregnancy test after missing her period in mid-October, the result confirmed that Armonta was expecting her fourth child. The 25-year-old, who had been back to work for just six months following her nine-month-old daughter’s birth, told People that her initial reaction was panic.
She scheduled an appointment at a Texas abortion business but scheduled a second appointment at an out-of-state abortion business in case her baby had a heartbeat. Her panic is what the Texas abortion business is now hoping will drive her to an abortion without taking the time to think it through. “My first thought is, I can’t have this baby. I can’t have another baby. I have three already and I do it by myself, and it’s hard,” she told People. “I don’t want to keep doing this by myself. And I barely started working again to support them. I just got it figured out, how to get everything done with three kids and work.”
Her story begs one important question that the People article fails to ask: ‘Where is the child’s father?’
Tragically, Armonta’s thoughts turned next to abortion as a solution for what she apparently believed to be solely her ‘problem.’ She described her mental state as she determined whether her child was under the gestational age limit to have an abortion following Texas’ September 1st enactment of the Heartbeat Act, which prohibits abortion once a preborn child’s heartbeat can be detected. “I was like, ‘Where am I going to go? What am I going to do?’ I was freaking out and crying a lot. I had been crying for days. I was just like, ‘Oh my god, I don’t know what I’m going to do.'” She felt “helpless” at the thought of not being able to abort in her hometown of Abilene. “I was like, ‘Oh my god, I’m not going to be able to do it in time.”
According to People, after confirming that her preborn child was under the six-week gestational age limit for abortions in Texas, Armonta drove three hours to an abortion facility in Austin for a chemical abortion. However, the Texas law isn’t based on a six-week timeline — instead, it states that the abortionist must check for a heartbeat before committing the abortion. The law states:
[…] a physician may not knowingly perform or induce an abortion on a pregnant woman unless the physician has determined, in accordance with this section, whether the woman’s unborn child has a detectable fetal heartbeat.
Armonta stressed that so far she has no regrets in her first few weeks after having an abortion, which is consistent with the relief many women report in the immediate aftermath of abortion before reality sets in months, years, even decades later. Armonta pointed the finger of blame at people who “are just so judgmental” and are “taking away the [abortion] services everywhere.” She lamented, “Women, especially single moms — we already have enough on our plate. Fathers don’t always stick around. It’s hard for people to catch [the pregnancy] in time.”
Two days later, she was back at work. She commented, “People were like, ‘You seem like you’re fine.’ People didn’t really know that I had an abortion, some people I just told that I miscarried. A lot of people are judgmental. But it’s my body, it’s my choice.”
Armonta’s devastating story of choosing abortion largely due to financial circumstances and lack of support illustrates just one aspect of the cascading fallout of the sexual revolution. The idea of no-strings-attached sex is at the heart of the sexual revolution. And that fallacious idea, that sex can be a purely recreational activity completely divorced from its procreative capacity, has had horrific consequences. Because men and women have been sold this lie, many people find themselves utterly unprepared when a child is conceived from a sexual encounter, leading to abortion as a quick fix. Meanwhile, the baby body count has risen to the tens of millions in the intervening decades since the sexual revolution and the legalization of abortion.
Sadly, women largely bear the brunt of unexpected pregnancies, as men are able to bow out of financial, familial, and other responsibilities because they didn’t ‘plan’ on becoming fathers. Inevitably, the lives of helpless, innocent children like Armonta’s preborn baby are sacrificed.
That inaccurate claim is an attempt to exempt mothers who murder babies from culpability for their own actions.
The question is who, under the Texas law, is a candidate for a lawsuit should the mother get an abortion. One answer to that has to be the father, who is equally responsible for the pregnancy to begin with.
[This is called “learning the hard way.”]
I don’t think she is really “learning.”
Fatherhood parenthood are commitments.
Wanna be a father, marry the woman and keep your dick in your pants until you do. You can marry in a church, or by the government, or whatever.
But you should have no rights or responsibilities unless you are committed
Because for people who just want to have an orgasm, that is all it is.
Why, exactly, do you presume that fathers want to reject parenthood?
Because they are self-centered jerks only interested in sex? And I don't know how you can refer to someone who "rejects parenthood" as a "father". Not sure why you are asking this question other than to show your self-righteousness?
Another result of the welfare state.
The Uber driver can refuse to drive her there.
The Uber driver can refuse to drive her there.
In that situation the man has no problem, nor is there any penalty for him for not keeping his pants zipped. These men are always going to vanish into the night after they get what they want and the consequences show up.
It is not within anyone’s power to make sure there are no men like this; They are always going to be out there. It is within the woman’s power to make sure she doesn’t allow a man like this to get her pregnant.
What a harsh world we live in.
Do we really need to go into what the father could have refused to do?
No legal definition of an unborn baby including autonomy across the board, no responsibility on the man. Equal protection. If the female can murder at will, the man should have the right not to bare responsibility and be allowed to financially walk away.
Or would you have rather have this convoluted and hypocritical “cake” that females crave to eat?
We're talking about the current Texas law and the ability for third parties to sue anyone remotely connected with the abortion. So that kills your 'murder at will' excuse for letting the man off because after all without the father there would have been no abortion at all. So if you can sue the Uber driver or a person who gives directions to the abortion clinic then the father should have just as much legal liability in the matter.
I accord to fathers the exact same default presumption that women accord to mothers: that they care about their daughters and sons, and should be treated accordingly short of being proven unfit as individuals.
The countervailing presumption, that fathers reject parenthood by default, is a poisonous presumption that is destroying civilization.
The problem is Mariah is with a new guy every night. Not “where is the father”, but who is the father?
With all the multitude of birth control options, she has no excuse.
The SINGLE BIGGEST determining factor in whether a child grows up in poverty, is the mom’s failure to get married first, to a stable man with a job.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.