Abortion Extremes and the Displacement of the Father

Romulus and Remus being abandoned by the Tiber River

Rose Sybil argues that current abortion legislation and discourse — liberal as well as conservative — represent a harmful cultural shift towards over-litigation, which displaces paternal authority and subjects families to state and bureaucratic control, neglecting the possibility of simpler laws that would reduce medical overreach and prevent the weaponization of abortion.

---

“Based Guatemalans with conservative Catholic family values!”

“Yeah, maybe they will even help us prevent abortions when they rape our women!”

Everyone has seen the first statement online in some fashion. The response below it is something we are closer to than many realize. Ten states in the US have proposed laws that would end rape and incest exemptions from abortion bans, even when the current requirement for proof in these states is high. What this means is that evangelizing interests have gone so far that they want to prevent actual rape victims from accessing early abortion, not prevent a loophole to abuse.

We cannot allow random violent rape to destroy the family potential of a daughter or wife. This is especially true when our nation has large groups of primitive populations with demonstrably high rates of sexual violence. Preventing abortion in cases of rape, especially under current conditions, is a recipe for disaster. We do not need generational trauma preserved through incestuous rape either. That form of dysfunction should swing from a tree.

The only case to be made for removing rape exceptions is when the husband is labeled the “rapist.” Even then, a universal law preventing rape exceptions is crude, when the marital case should be addressed directly without lumping it in with random rape. We must minimize excessive litigation that women can use against their husbands within families, yet still allow legal interference when the appropriate context demands it. The real issue is that fathers are prevented from having a say in the lives of their unborn children.

We are trapped between mirror-image lunatics on the issue of abortion. If a Somali raped a woman, liberals would call for leniency toward the rapist. Evangelical conservatives would want to bar the woman from aborting any potential offspring. Neither position is healthy nor just. That these proposals did not pass is irrelevant. Many other similar laws have been proposed, more of which will be touched on shortly. Their existence signals a harmful cultural shift that will continue until some version of them does.

Shifts in abortion laws, proposals, and enforcement highlights deeper cultural changes that necessitate our examination of the relationship between law and sexual power dynamics. A new precedent has been set: the first recorded case of a woman being charged with fetal homicide in the United States for aborting her own unborn child. The details of the case will not be addressed here, as the circumstances surrounding the charge appear valid and the charge was dropped because the law does not yet allow for criminal charges against the mother, only abortion providers.

Several states have proposed laws that would impose criminal charges on mothers who obtain abortions or who travel to other states for the procedure. Although the essence of holding mothers criminally accountable for elective and unnecessary abortion is agreeable, the more fundamental problems with many abortion laws must be addressed first. We must offer better alternatives while ending blanket elective abortion, in ways that minimize pushback created by decontextualized and abstract laws allowing for real injustice.

Over-litigation driven by evangelical and liberal extremes creates a false dichotomy. These poles feed into one another and jointly displace the father’s authority within the family. Feminist destruction of masculinity is not defeated by granting state bureaucracies or medical oligopolies more power over women, but by preventing women from using legal means to harm and control men within their families.

The multifaceted effects caused by blanket abortion legalization have been deeply corrosive to Western Civilization. It has harmed the health of motherhood and the deep connection to children in the womb. Normalizing elective abortion changed the perception of children from a blessing into a financial obstacle and burden. It increased impulsive behavior in both sexes, destroyed a sense of responsibility for future generations, and has been weaponized against men by displacing their authority over their children beginning in the womb.

---

---

The approach to ending blanket abortion litigation should be just as integrative, with the purpose being to strengthen healthy, hierarchical family units once again. The desire to save all unborn life at any cost is not a holistic vantage, nor is it capable of weighing situations in which harm to the family in one case outweighs harm in another. Religious zealotry that treats all unborn life as interchangeable becomes a form of egalitarian humanism, misallocating energy and resources toward dysfunction rather than prioritizing the health of the whole. Rather than lifting the bottom as it claims to do, it continuously expands it.

Our aim should be to facilitate the healthiest, organic civilization possible, one that allows for natural variance so that no single trait is artificially over-selected for. Abortion for trisomy and other major defects is an extension of natural processes such as spontaneous miscarriage. This is particularly imbalanced in modern times, where pregnancy is often sustained through artificial means. By contrast, abortion for gender preference in an otherwise healthy child is not an extension of natural processes. Female feticide and infanticide remain common in Asian, Middle Eastern, Indian, and Near Eastern cultures, including some Christian populations, with harmful results (see this video for further information).

Based Latin America does not exhibit this pattern of killing at the pre-or-postnatal stage, so the average Guatemalan would not abort a female child. This restraint is offset elsewhere. Rates of femicide of young girls are extremely high, preceded by sexual assault. Approximately one girl in Latin America is murdered every two hours. They have such high rates of random rape resulting in early teenage motherhood that it is a humanitarian crisis. External intervention is required to manage the resulting dysfunction, which will continue to expand because its root is left unaddressed. But hey, they are based because at least they oppose abortion!

Unlike other groups, Aryans have limited cultural burden by placing early responsibility on the father. This is why newborns were presented to the father across European cultures for acceptance or rejection. A soul born into a defective body would return to the same family to be born into its full potential. By extension, it would offer more to its living culture. We now possess technology that can minimizes devastation through early screening while preserving the same underlying essence.

Families should have the option to screen for and terminate extreme disability or deformation in early pregnancy, since they bear the long-term burdens of pregnancy and child-rearing. No one would force evangelicals to make such choices, but they should not be allowed to force others to carry pregnancies under these conditions because of their personal religious extremeism. Prohibiting families from choosing abortion regardless of defect only intensifies familial and societal dysfunction.

The idolization of dysfunction, especially when it prevents the full actualization of those with the highest potential, has had devastating consequences. By curtailing excessive dysfunction, those least capable benefit by being embedded within a more functional system that can absorb their needs. Liberals demand universal resource allocation in ways that increase dependency and dysfunction of external groups and women, while reducing abortion to a purely personal preference. Most conservatives respond only by seeking to prevent abortion outright, not by attempting to minimize dysfunction within society itself. Neither side treats this as a question of cultivating a healthy familial hierarchy, which is the bedrock of our civilization.

---

---

For a nation to possess dominion and self-determination, it must have masculine men. Masculinity is formed at the foundation of sexual dynamics within the family unit. Law should reinforce this foundation, not create further abstractions between man and wife. More extreme evangelical laws have been proposed that restrict abortion exceptions so severely in the case of emergencies or health risks that it effectively prevents action when time matters. These laws would facilitate greater family trauma by making people afraid to seek or provide help under the threat of overly complicated legal penalties in high-stress situations. This places excessive state bureaucracies in an abstract position of control over the wife and child and, by extension, the entire family. The father is once again displaced within his own household.

Husbands have emergency medical power over their wives, so the father should make emergency decisions because he understands what’s at risk for their particular family dynamic and needs, their wishes, and would bear the consequences of the choice. Over-litigation displaces agency from real people in rapidly changing and complex realities that require personal judgment calls. Displacing the father’s choice with complicated laws maintains the husband’s responsibility for the outcomes of chaotic and confused emergency scenarios, without the right to exert his judgment to affect the outcome. This would effectively make the man a slave to both state and medical bureaucratic procedures and rules. This is a great injustice and erodes respect for lawfulness and authority itself. The fact that some of these laws have not yet passed does not mean they will not, and current restrictions are already creating compounding issues with critical healthcare.

A friend of mine had a devastating first-trimester miscarriage. Under current abortion laws in her state, she could not receive a D&C — a procedure to scrape the uterine lining when it does not naturally vacate, preventing putrification of the tissues and sepsis — because an extremely low and sparse heart rate could be detected. By defining life as a heartbeat in any form, the law prevented her from receiving necessary medical care before risking sepsis. The pregnancy was nonviable, not growing, and no longer alive in any meaningful sense beyond a faint cardiac signal. This placed extreme pressure on her family with young children, and travel expenses to leave the state for basic medical care.

Once she arrived at a clinic in the neighboring state, evangelical protesters were encircling the building. She and her veteran husband were subjected to vile and hostile accusations as if this were an elective abortion, when it was the loss of a wanted pregnancy. They endured unnecessary stress and humiliation added to their grief. She was a socially conservative woman who now has reactive hostility toward conservative abortion positions. Even worse, she has anxiety about future wanted pregnancies for fear of not receiving necessary care for emergencies or miscarriages with dignity and compassion. Her state is one of many that proposed adding more restrictions to the abortion laws when the current restrictions caused this experience.

This is how over-litigation works. It creates a lette- of-the-law emphasis that prevents contextual and natural variation. There are too many laws to be understood, and they often emphasize technical compliance over the essence of the law. Excessive litigation increases judicial power. The result is predictable: both sides create real injustices, and polarization intensifies until the system swings between dysfunctional extremes. We cannot let this continue, and must find better examples on these matters.

A contrast to this is seen in the East of the Global North. Russia handles abortion without over-litigation. Russia is a Christian nation that allows elective abortion in the first trimester, though it is socially discouraged. Medical professionals are legally prevented from encouraging abortion, keeping it a family matter rather than a liberal social weapon. Waiting periods are enforced to give time for such a serious decision. Regional bans for elective abortion allow for local cultural autonomy while clear exemptions for medical necessity and rape are in place, preventing unnecessary tragedy and grievances to build. There is no overcorrection, so there is no major social pushback against conservative positions, which is ideal. Less litigation and de facto discernment in prosecution reduces resentment and injustice in emergent care, increases women’s confidence in having children, and preserves agency for both parents over health and medical decisions.

The Russian law preventing medical personnel from encouraging abortion is excellent because it limits the intrusive reach of the medical bureaucratic apparatus, preventing the promotion of liberal ideology to women in vulnerable states. For too long, medical authorities, propped up by excessive state bureaucracy, have pushed liberal agendas. Medical establishments now target children for hormonal treatments and body modification at the behest of mothers empowered by disproportionate bureaucratic control over the family.

Medical personnel in positions of authority should provide only factual information about health issues and risks, not opinions or suggestions that carry the weight of their position. Laws should be introduced to address both issues, including criminalizing medical personnel who insert liberal (pro-abortion or pro-transgender) propaganda into care, thereby safeguarding family autonomy. Both issues stem from the same source: the overreach of state bureaucracies in tandem with the medical oligopoly to displace the father within the family.

All laws should be considered in terms of how they affect the health of the family unit as a hierarchical microcosm for society. Will this law potentially harm the mother more? Will it further displace the father’s authority into an abstraction of bureaucratic control? How would maternal health be affected if life-saving measures are scrutinized so heavily that providers hesitate to perform them? Should the decisions during emergencies or major illness be decided by the family based on their unique religious beliefs, preferences, life circumstances, and risks in the range of outcomes for various scenarios or on the letter of the law that restricts meaningful action in the worst-case scenarios?

Examining the ways the law can create injustice helps reveal how it should be simplified or worded with qualifiers that allow functional ambiguity, reducing unintended harm and eventual pushback. We must scrutinize whether the letter of the law captures the essence of its purpose. For example, if abortion laws are defined solely by heartbeat, what happens when there are weak or prolonged heartbeats with no meaningful development? A simple adjustment of defining by heartbeat alongside progressive growth could close this loophole, sparing many families the suffering that my friend endured.

Fathers should have legal rights in the care of their unborn children. Proactive laws are needed to grant fathers emergency conservatorship if a healthy mother threatens or intends to abort a healthy baby. This is particularly important when the father can demonstrate that the threat is vengeful, a situation that does occur. Such measures prevent abortion from being weaponized against fathers.

Reactive measures could include civil lawsuits or criminal charges in cases of weaponized, non-essential abortion, including attempts and intent. Fathers who seek to exploit these laws in cases involving genuine health concerns or emergencies should likewise face civil and criminal repercussions. These approaches limit bureaucratic overreach as the primary mechanism for managing family matters. They facilitate a shift back to a functional familial hierarchy while increasing autonomy.

Over-litigation fragments families, removing mutual accountability and depriving them of the judgment needed in situations where they bear the consequences. Abortion cannot be treated as a standalone moral abstraction or as an imperative to preserve every pregnancy at any cost. The law should intervene only to prevent recklessness or weaponization, not to replace familial authority with bureaucratic control. Fathers must be empowered within their homes rather than displaced by abstract legal mechanisms.

When the family is freed from external legal pressures and medical overreach, it can order itself effectively, upholding the foundation upon which Western Civilization stands.

---

READ MORE from Arktos:

Legitimate Preference by Tim Vorgens lays out a practical vision of how Europeans can restore the natural instinct for their own and rebuild confidence, community, and cultural direction.