For years, I have thought that the real motivation behind the pro-abortion movement is convenience. Pro-abortionists like to wave the banner of choice when, in fact, the issue is really convenience. By failing to exercise the many choices she had prior to becoming pregnant, a women winds up with a baby growing inside of her, a baby she does not want. It is simply not convenient for the woman in question to give birth to a child, so she chooses abortion. I wonder if there could be a more damning example of self-centeredness than the choice to abort a child out for the sake of convenience. But, just when you think you have heard everything the left comes up with its latest surprise: fecundophobia.
Fecundophobia, a term coined by journalist Molly Hemingway, is a fear of and contempt for children, large families, and fertile women (hence the term “fecund”). The issue recently came to light when Tiffany Rivers, wife of San Diego Chargers quarterback Philip Rivers, gave birth to their seventh child. Based on the media’s response to the birth, you would have thought that Philip and Tiffany Rivers had committed treason. And, if they were liberal secular humanists, the birth of a seventh child would have been considered treasonous. For that matter, the birth of one child would make them suspect. Liberals understand aborting children, but they don’t seem to be able to cope with actually giving birth to them.
Liberals once used the over-population argument to justify their aversion to children (they always look for a high-road rationale to disguise their real motivations). However, as government census data began to show that the U.S. population is actually declining, that falsely high-minded argument had to be dropped. In fact, according to futurist George Friedman, author of The Next 100 Years, in the not too distant future America’s declining population will change the focus of immigration policy from keeping them out to enticing them to come. This has forced liberals to regroup and take another approach.
Now, rather than try to justify their unjustifiable aversion to children, liberals have done what they always do: they have gone on the offensive. Rather than explain why they don’t want children, they demand that other people explain why they do. One of my fellow authors at this site has eleven children, all of them outstanding young Americans who are a joy to know and who are making contributions to the good of their communities and society in general. But when liberals learn that this author has eleven children, their response is predictable: Why? To this author’s credit, he quickly responds: Why not?
I will admit that it does not bother me when liberals choose to forego childbearing, so long as they do not use abortion as their chosen method of birth-control. After all, their self-imposed barrenness might actually decrease the size of the liberal gene pool. What bothers me about liberals is that they demand that the rest of us make the same choices they make. It is never enough for liberals to live by their own convictions. They are not happy until everyone else is required—preferably by government fiat—to live according to liberal convictions. Hence, the negative response of the media to the seventh child of Philip and Tiffany Rivers.
Fecundophobia is a recent socio-cultural phenomenon. I am old enough to remember when large families were the norm rather than the exception. When I was a child it was small families not large that society looked askance at. Much has changed since those days of yore, and not necessarily for the better. What really bothers liberals about Philip and Tiffany Rivers having seven children is that they are a traditional married couple and they and their children are a traditional family. If Philip Rivers were like some of his NFL colleagues who have fathered numerous children out of wedlock, liberals would applaud him.