The mainstream media have started a campaign against traditional marriage. On NBC’s “Today,” Anchor Ann Curry presented “a nearly seven-minute piece on the rapid increase of single women in society by touting ‘a new spin on romance, dating, and what some are calling the end of traditional marriage.’”

NBC Correspondent Jenna Wolfe stated: “A new report says more women are choosing to be single and loving every minute of it.” Like in so many television shows, films, and commercials men are made to look foolish and unnecessary.

NBC brought author and single woman Kate Bolick onto the show, where she tried to make the case that “Today marriage is an option, it’s not a necessity, the way it once was.” The Today report also quoted screenwriter Maria Maggenti who proclaimed what she believed are the virtues of singlehood: “I’m single. I’m happy. My life is filled with love, and friends, and — and family, and — and good work that I love.”

The next day, CBS’s “Early Show” continued the anti-marriage onslaught describing it as an “unnatural” institution and a “morality cage.”

Logan Levkoff, a contributor to the liberal Huffington Post, added her own anti-marriage point of view: “There’s no question that marriage is a social construct that I think does not apply to everyone these days. And now that women are taking over the world, we don’t need you as much.”

Erica Hill followed up after Levkoff’s anti-male theme: “There was a time when women needed a husband. And there are so many places in the world where they do, because otherwise they can’t work, they can’t support their families, they can’t take care of their children. They needed that financial aspect, that financial security. Well now, women take care of themselves.”

All of this reminds me of the novel World Without Men (1958) (revised in 1972 and reissued as Alph) written by Charles Eric Maine. Thomas F. Bertonneau writes:

[W]hile not rising to the artistic level of the Orwell and Huxley masterpieces, World Without Men merits being rescued from the large catalogue of 1950’s paperback throwaways, not least because of Maine’s vision of an ideological dystopia is based on criticism, not of socialism or communism per se nor of technocracy per se, but rather of feminism. Maine saw in the nascent feminism of his day (the immediate postwar period) a dehumanizing and destructive force, tending towards totalitarianism, which had the potential to deform society in radical, unnatural ways. Maine grasped that feminism – the dogmatic delusion that women are morally and intellectually superior to men – derived its fundamental premises from hatred of, not respect for, the natural order; he grasped also that feminism entailed a fantastic rebellion against sexual dimorphism, which therefore also entailed a total rejection of inherited morality.

There’s a silver lining in all of this male and marriage bashing. With fewer liberals getting married, there will be fewer liberals having children. In the end, that is, in the future, there will be fewer liberals.

With this anti-marriage background, I offer a “Modest Proposal” (please read the entire article before commenting) to take the process a step further by supporting abortion on demand for all liberals. Not only would it support their anti-marriage and pro-abortion views, but it would also address their concern for the environment, specifically, over-population.

Population “experts” tell us that we are heading for critical mass where population growth will soon out-pace food supplies. Water, arable land, and natural resources are in limited supply. Such concerns, we are told, affect us all, regardless of political affiliation. One mouth is just as hungry as another.

One way to avert an over-population calamity is to shrink the population by pro-active means. Some prominent billionaires have devoted their after-tax fortunes to such a task. But wouldn’t it be best to eliminate only those who are true problems, those who lack social utility? I believe “useless eaters” is the appropriate phrase. A bit of discrimination is needed based on a studied statistical analysis. A simple assessment of purpose and need are in order to determine who should breed, all for a better world.

By all means, a person’s background and potential for contributing to society should be taken into account. Only the best people should be exempted from the weeding out process. No doubt we could convince potential parents that their present “sacrifice” would result in a benefit for those who remain, including themselves. What groups commit the most crimes? What groups are a drain on tax dollars? There are other sensitive but necessary questions to be asked.

In keeping with liberal policies, birth control methods of all kinds should be funded by tax dollars. Make them cheap and easy to procure. Now if we can only get the right people to take them. Liberals should be the first to self-limit their progeny since abortion is their religion, and we don’t want to discriminate on their right to exercise it. We should make every inhibitor to reproduction legal to them and those within their circle of influence. Of course, we’ll look the other way if they choose some illegal methods. Anything to support their cause.

Associate Supreme Court Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg said she believed the landmark Roe v. Wade decision on abortion was predicated on the Supreme Court majority’s desire to diminish “populations that we don’t want to have too many of.” Of course, there is nothing new in what Ginsburg said. The American Birth Control League (which eventually became Planned Parenthood) was founded for this very purpose. In 1939 Margaret Sanger, author of The Pivot of Civilization, started “The Negro Project.” She called on black preachers to support sterilization:

“We should hire three or four colored ministers, preferably with social-service backgrounds, and with engaging personalities. The most successful educational approach to the Negro is through a religious appeal. We do not want word to go out that we want to exterminate the Negro population and the minister is the man who can straighten out that idea if it ever occurs to any of their more rebellious members.”

The authors of Freakonomics, which has sold more than three million copies, assert that there might be a link between legalized abortion and the reduction of crime.1 This is logical. If crimes are committed by people who are alive, and you kill some of them before they can commit crimes, crime will be reduced. Since more crimes are committed by “certain groups” (also see here), it would be best to target those groups for abortions.

This will mean fewer liberals in the future. While pro-abortion liberals are doing the environmentally friendly and politically correct thing, conservatives with their large families will dominate the culture in a generation or two. At least one very liberal columnist has noticed the problem: “[F]or the past 30 years or so, conservatives — particularly those of the right-wing red-state Christian strain — have been out-breeding liberals by a margin of at least 20 percent, if not far more. . . . Libs just aren’t procreating like they could/should be.”2

Many of you may be surprised at my support of these actions. Much of what I’ve said is satire, following in the tradition of Jonathan Swift, to make a point. It was in 1792 that he wrote “A Modest Proposal for Preventing the Children of Poor People in Ireland from Being a Burden to their Parents or Country, and for Making them Beneficial to the Public.” And what was the proposal? Swift suggested that the impoverished Irish might ease their economic troubles by selling their children as food for rich gentlemen and ladies. He wrote his Proposal to force the people of Ireland to look at the way they were treating the poor.

Maybe it’s time that we get pro-abortionists to look at the long-term implications of abortion. The black community should take a hard look since there is a disproportionate percentage of black children being aborted, and yet blacks for the most part continue to support government officials who are pro-abortion.

The Bible tells us, “Do not answer a fool according to his folly, or you will also be like him. Answer a fool as his folly deserves, that he not be wise in his own eyes. (Prov. 26:4–5).

1. Steven D. Levitt and Stephen J. Dubner, Freakonomics: A Rogue Economist Explores the Hidden Side of Everything (New York: William Morrow, 2005), chap. 4. There are those who dispute their findings on linking abortion to a decline in the crime rate. But for this article it does not matter. It’s what the authors claimed and many people wanted to believe because they are religiously connected to abortion on demand as they see it as their bloody sacrament. [↩]
2. Mark Morford, “When Liberals Rule the World: Stats say the GOP is dying. But red-staters are breeding like drunken ferrets. Who wins?,” SF Gate (March 28, 2007). [↩]