How might concerned men who are against abortion help guide seriously misled single and pregnant women? By taking one for the team and marrying them to prevent abortion, argues Denise Noe in mensNEWSdaily. These altruistic bachelors, which Noe cutely dubs "Grooms for Life," should propose marriage to prevent women from resorting to abortion. "The motif of a man proposing marriage to a woman pregnant with another mans child is a common one on soap operas that are a fairly good gauge of female fantasy," Noe says. "These stories represent the truth that many pregnant women dont really want to abort, and would not, if marriage and commitment were offered to them." It's a wonder that Noe doesn't also conclude that women secretly desire an evil identical twin or catastrophic wedding ceremony, since the unencumbered imaginings of Los Angeles TV writers seem her go-to source for what real-life women want and need.
If pairing these odd couples seems impractical at best, Noe says that technology is the answer: "Grooms for Life could be facilitated on a practical basis by computerized matching of pro-life single men with unmarried pregnant women interested in carrying to term." And Noe's plan is all-inclusive, suggesting that antiabortion women and married men help in the recruiting effort so that "the screaming demonstrators outside abortion clinics would soon be replaced by swains in bow ties, holding rings and serenading the pregnant women." If that isn't the sweetest darned image ever!
Clearly, there are many nits to pick here, and Noe tries preemptively to address her detractors. To skeptics who say that these arranged marriages have no chance of survival, Noe writes, "It is a peculiarly Western -- and modern -- idea that says marriage must be based on love." And as for those who argue that some wacky women will get pregnant just to land an antiabortion bachelor, Noe actually concedes that "most women are quite rational people and will realize that the number of Grooms For Life will not exceed the demand for them."
Here's the kicker: Noe writes, "Most women are pro-choice and, therefore, will have no incentive to abandon their current practice (whether celibacy, lesbianism, or contraception) in hopes of marrying a pro-lifer." And with that, I'm confused. Pro-choice women are so stuck in their celibate, lesbian or contraceptive ways that they would never seek out a pro-life bachelor? Didn't the whole argument kind of hinge on the opposite assumption? Or are pro-life women -- otherwise weakened by their singledom and lack of male support into having an abortion -- the only ones worth saving?