The argument is that single motherhood is the biggest threat to pro-family efforts, not abortion. This is a very defensible position, as abortion merely ends a life and single motherhood is likely to bring a life through a cycle of poverty that will lead generations after it through the same cycle. Of course, I disagree strongly with this position, as should all pro-life supporters. Murder is murder, after all.

What is not defensible, however, are the author’s presumptions as to why single motherhood is the biggest threat to pro-family supporters, including the following: “Virgins are now considered losers, and people who save themselves for marriage are considered weird or extreme religious nuts. ” There are a number of things wrong with these points, including the following:

1. Speaking as a male, female virgins are considered very attractive, classy and worthy of raising one’s standards to impress, as I see guys doing every day. It’s the free-living, one-night-standers who are considered losers, of bad morals, etc. even by those who partake in sexual activities with them. (To paraphrase the old adage, a guy is “cool” for sex, a woman is an R-rated word. Britney Spears, anyone? Lindsay Lohan, perhaps?) To clarify, no, I have no experiences with these matters, as I am a virgin. Perhaps my viewpoint is biased regarding abstinent women. If so, I would contend non-virgin viewpoints on the benefits of having sex are biased as well.

Related, there are many consequences to those who have pre-marital sex at a young age; The Heritage Foundation shows a number of them, and the Journal of Youth and Adolescence had this study in February, 2007. The consequences, detailed in the linked research, include high delinquency rates and lower educational success, among others.

2. People who save themselves for marriage are considered respectable religious followers, as Americans generally respect others’ spiritual and religious beliefs (or non-beliefs, as the case may be). As a conservative Catholic, I am told by many that they “wish they had done that [been a virgin]” until they met their current significant other, often a fiancee. Too, even those who don’t regret their past actions often say it’s respectable to have the kind of strength they believe it takes not to have pre-marital sex. There are, of course, those who are virgins due to social awkwardness, but there are also those who have sex because of peer pressure, so the “losers” argument holds no water. (One example of an abstinent non-loser, by the way, is retired NBA player A.C. Green.)

The fact is that abortion consists of the taking of a human life, and most pro-family advocates recognize this. They also recognize that not having sex, staying married, having a good education etc. are major keys to keeping single motherhood rates down. On the other hand, encouragement by those who are distinctly not pro-family for actions such as abortion, contraceptive use, “shacking up” and “The Pill” definitely keep single motherhood rates up. Want proof? Look at how out-of-wedlock birth rates have changed over the last half-century, when all of the liberal and not pro-family concepts listed above became more popular. Too, as The Heritage Foundation put it, “For decades long, this well intentioned program had the unfortunate consequence of encouraging single women to have more children out of wedlock and penalized them if they got married or found employment. Not surprisingly, the welfare caseloads exploded and the out of wedlock birth rate steadily rose.”

The fact is, however, that all arguments against the author’s points are weaker than the basic point that abortion is wrong. Supporting the killing of humanity’s weakest for the sake of single motherhood prevention is a flawed argument akin to saying we should shoot poor people for increasing our health care costs or execute people for the sake of decreasing global warming.