Breast Cancer and Abortion


Twelve percent of women will develop invasive breast cancer during their lifetime. A quarter million new cases are diagnosed each year. Many will go through chemotherapy and/or have breasts removed. It will still kill around 40,000 women a year (~14% death rate).

Women who give birth in their teens through early twenties have the lowest risk of developing breast cancer. The more children they have—and the earlier they have them—the better. Paradoxically, women who give birth for the first time in their 30s actually have an increased risk.

Cancer risk goes up while on the pill. Cancer risk declines with breast feeding.

By promoting delayed (or no) marriage and having fewer (or no) children feminism literally harms women.

Feminists will often state that banning abortion would harm women’s health. About 700 women die each year as a result of pregnancy or delivery complications. This is two orders of magnitude less than the number of deaths due to breast cancer.

Consider a pro-family society where abortion is banned completely and men and women marry and start families in their teens and early twenties. Even a small percentage decrease in breast cancer due to this would result in significant health benefits to women.

It is often best to cite the evidence presented by your enemies and use it against them. This limits your bias and increases the strength of your arguments. If you read some of the links above, you’ll notice the well-cited claim that abortion (probably) does not increase the cancer risk compared to all women (and those who have miscarriages).

This really tiptoes around the core issue: abortion means a woman does not have a full-term pregnancy and birth when she otherwise would have except for abortion. Thus the woman who aborts is voluntarily not receiving the protective benefits that come with giving birth and breast feeding—benefits that would have happened if not for the abortion.

She should be compared to the women who give birth, not all women in general and not women who have involuntary abortions (miscarriages). If this is done, it becomes plain that abortion intentionally increases her risk relative to what it would have been if she had not gotten an abortion.

Feminism truly is the Religion of Death.

 When a woman dies from breast cancer, it was the cancer that killed her. When a woman dies from complications due to pregnancy, it is not the pregnancy that killed her, but the various complications. So you can save lives directly be decreasing cancer, but you can’t directly increase or decrease pregnancy complications by changing the number of pregnancies. Other factors are at play that prevent direct, immediate causation.

Religion of Death

Lulu's bilateral tibial hemimelia. The feet are flipped inward and upward.
Is this low quality of life?

America is governed by a religion of death. Moloch is god and abortion is the worship ritual. It is the primary religion of feminism.

For nearly 50 years Christians have been fighting back against Roe v. Wade. The battle lines have been drawn with infanticide on the left and a nearly complete ban on the right. The stage is being set for a Supreme Court showdown. The result of this showdown could be a multi-generational inflection point even more important than the abolition of slavery and the civil rights movement.

Consider the power of images. Pro-life supporters show pictures of aborted and unborn babies. They use memes. Some of us use images of our own children.

My adopted daughter has Bilateral Tibial Hemimelia, affecting about 1 in 2 million. In America, Doctors would have recommended that she be aborted. They would say that her deformities were grave and she would have a poor quality of life, that her genetic condition may indicate a weak heart, and that her medical treatments would be a financial and emotional drag on both family and society.


My daughter has above-average intelligence and is a natural leader. She can now walk, run, and do cart-wheels. Her heart is fine. She has never been a drag on us. She is a beautiful person, full of life. Her life has value.

Mark and Natalie Weaver’s daughter Sophia has Rett syndrome and various other problems. She is physically disfigured and has had 30 surgeries. Her life has value. Their daughter’s image was used in a tweet advocating coerced abortion and they were told that their daughter should die and be put her out of her misery. Natalie Weaver is an activist feminist, yet even she can see the destructiveness and hatred of the religion of death when it hits her personally, even if she misjudges the cause. Dehumanizing those with disabilities goes hand-in-hand with dehumanizing the unborn. The inevitable result is death.

Brother Boxer recently criticized me for insulting, lying, and being ineffectual:

“Why would I indulge someone with such a history of bad-faith arguments? Go do something to reclaim the Christianity of 100 years ago, rather than insulting and bearing false-witness against men on the internet.”

I took a couple weeks off to consider this. I regret that my behavior has not been Christ-like. I’m not sure if I can improve the quality of conversation or be more effective, despite my deep desire to do so. As such, I have been strongly considering giving up blogging entirely to avoid causing more harm than good. I’m not even sure if I should try to bring back Christianity. Perhaps mainstream Christianity should just be allowed to wither and die.

Regardless, there is one thing that Christians should be doing.


Throughout all of recorded history it is thought that as many as 1 billion people have died in wars. It is estimated that almost 2 billion persons have been aborted in the last four decades. Abortion is now humankind’s leading cause of death.

For all the arguments against Christianity—legitimate and illegitimate—abortion stands apart. It is the greatest evil humankind has ever wrought. If there is a problem of evil that Christianity needs to respond to, it is abortion. Moreover, abortion may not be the sole facilitator of feminism, but it is a major contributor. Thus, fighting abortion fights feminism and its fruits (e.g. frivorce). It won’t bring back historical Christianity, but it’s a necessary prerequisite.

 The ritual of frivolous divorce results in the death of marriage and family. Similarly, the rituals of promiscuity and contraception prevent the formation of marriage and family, the lifeblood of society. The ritual of censorship is the death of freedom.

Contrast this with the life of forced prostitution she likely would have had in China.

Why Christianity Redux

After asserting that Christianity is full of hate and that God silently approves, Brother Boxer implored Brother Earl and myself to abandon Christianity.

“You guys should consider converting to something else. You really aren’t Christians, and the Christians don’t deserve you, anyway.”

A few Brothers took issue with Boxer’s categorization of Christianity as a hateful and evil religion with the approval of God. They claimed that many Christians are No True Christians.

While Boxer declined to give us a sensible alternative to Christianity, no alternative is needed.  In truth, Christianity is operating as designed. We most certainly should not abandon Christianity. In order to show and explain this, we have to examine the roots of the religion. Consider the following claims:

  1. The Universe had a beginning and a Creator.
  2. Life was designed.
  3. Jesus really existed.
  4. Jesus died and was resurrected.

The first and second are arguments of science, logic, and philosophy. The third and fourth are arguments of history. Together these arguments bypass the majority of the Jewish folk religion as irrelevant, while showing the authority and significance of Jesus. In doing so Christianity is established as a religion with a concrete, Big Bang-like origin—not an arbitrary folk religion subject to the whims of its adherents or cultural shifts.

In order to answer “Why Christianity?” one must consider the words of Jesus, its founder.

“Because strait is the gate, and narrow is the way, which leadeth unto life, and few there be that find it.”

The way is ‘narrow’ in that following Jesus involves trials, suffering, and a strenuous effort to accept. Indeed, this was promised in spades.

And he that taketh not his cross, and followeth after me, is not worthy of me.

Perhaps suffering is the reason why there will be so few followers of Jesus. Yet, if you find suffering, you will find the followers of Jesus loving.

Thou shalt love the Lord thy God with all thy heart, and with all thy soul, and with all thy mind. This is the first and great commandment. And the second is like unto it, Thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself. On these two commandments hang all the law and the prophets.

It’s a bitter pill that those who love must suffer. It may sound trite and clichéd, but the reason the followers of Jesus persist is because love is more powerful than suffering. While physics has four fundamental forces, Christianity has one: love.

But what about all of those who have corrupted the teachings? This is expected.

For many shall come in my name, saying, I am Christ; and shall deceive many.


Not every one that saith unto me, Lord, Lord, shall enter into the kingdom of heaven; but he that doeth the will of my Father which is in heaven. Many will say to me in that day, Lord, Lord, have we not prophesied in thy name? and in thy name have cast out devils? and in thy name done many wonderful works? And then will I profess unto them, I never knew you: depart from me, ye that work iniquity.

In summary, Jesus taught the following:

  • The religion he was founding would never end.
  • The religion would be corrupted, especially as time progressed.
  • The religious faithful would be few.
  • The religious would be characterized by (a) love and (b) suffering and persecution.

By virtue of his resurrection, Jesus had full authority to set the terms of his religion. Why then is anyone surprised that the religion he founded has turned out as expected?

When I look around I see the corruption, same as anyone else who cares to see. I also see the faithful few, characterized by their suffering and their love. Yet I won’t abandon ship—it isn’t sinking. I take the label of Christian because the Christ is my master, not because of what anyone else says or does. For better or worse, our actions—not labels—tell the story of who we are and where our allegiance lies. I’m okay with that.

† For sake of argument

Beneficios del matrimonio

Marital Satisfaction 2.PNG

It is unwise for a man or woman to enter marriage without understanding how marriage will impact their happiness. The majority of married life will be relatively unhappy. Most persons will need to be married for nearly 4 decades before they possibly get that spark back that they had at the beginning.

Many women are taught by the feminist society that they can (and should) divorce if they become unhaaaaaaaaaapy!! Accordingly, the highest divorce rates occur during those early years, as marital happiness steadily declines.

Marital Satisfaction 1.PNG

Without a doubt, raising children is a stressful, difficult experience.

Merely having a child results in an instantaneous drop in marital happiness. Interrupted sleep, poop, noise, and sickness are not conducive to sanity. It helps to have a stay at home mom, but if she works then finding a babysitter is stressful and costly.

It gets a little easier once the children enter school, although you’ll have a busy schedule with sports and other extra-curricular activities. Unfortunately this is only a temporary improvement. Kids become teenagers. Anyone who has ever met or been a teenager understands the horror of this.

It turns out that children are expensive and wives like spending money. So men work hard to provide their family, working to advance their careers. Husbands and fathers are abnormally driven and successful at this.

You’ll come home at the end of every stressful 10-hour day exhausted to find your wife exhausted from caring for your 3 noisy children. Dinner will need to be made, diapers changed, vacuuming done, laundry folded, lunches packed, and lawn mowed. Guess who has to do most of that so she can rest? Good luck if she’s pregnant.

But then you will get a call from work. Do you like that big pay raise you just got? Duty calls. You can say goodbye to having sex with her tonight. Maybe you can schedule it for next Wednesday.

You’ll find your groove, learning to work on less sleep and limited appreciation even as you get older and your body becomes less capable. Yet everything is okay, right?

Then the roof starts to leak and needs to be replaced. The AC unit just died. The car’s automatic transmission blew out (should have driven manual!). Jimmy needs surgery. The high school quarterback just got Susie pregnant. Now you got laid off and the wife has to go back to work.

The financial burdens will pile up and it will be rough.

When was the last time we even went to bed together, let alone had sex? I can’t even remem….zzzzzzzz.

Marriage is a truly terrible proposition. It consists of tons of work with future prospects that 50% will never make it to. Some have compared it to voluntary slavery. Perhaps that is accurate.

There is only one thing worse than being married…

Marital Satisfaction 3.PNG

…and that is being unmarried.


This post is tongue-in-cheek. Marriage can look pretty bad if it is presented that way. Depending on what you read and who you talk to, you might get the impression that marriage offers nothing to a man, that MGTOW is the way to happiness. Perhaps for some it is.

Life is hard but having someone at your side makes things just that much better.

We owe it to men to find a way to make marriage viable, to open up its benefits to more men. Part of that is informing them of the pitfalls, to help them choose more intelligently. This blog does an excellent job of that. Yet just as important is acknowledging the benefits and describing how to achieve them realistically. I will continue to do so.

The Mythical Unicorn

A rare unicorn, spotted in Costa Rica

Brother Ballista has made the claim that Marriage Is A Feminist Tool Used Against Men. The underlying (and popular) premise is that All Women Are Like That—feminists to the core. Marriage is their tool and should be avoided. It follows that there are no unicorns, no Not All Women Are Like That.

Recently Brother Jason noted:

“Some men MGTOW until they do meet the unicorn and become like the men out there with prefect marriages.”

Such men avoid marriage until they evaluate the risks, weigh the options, and choose carefully. They select that unicorn* or no one at all. This reflects a common—perhaps even normative—way of thinking in the ‘sphere.

This is a solid plan, but is it realistic? Can or should we expect the majority of men to ignore the biological imperative to pair up and have children? I don’t think so and I am not alone. Considering other options is emphatically not man-shaming, a call to “man up”, or a warrant to enter marriage blindly.

Publicly, I will describe my strengths and weaknesses in marriage and my wife’s strengths, but I don’t specifically discuss her weaknesses. This gives the false appearance that I have a “perfect marriage” to a NAWALT.

The (N)AWALT meme essentially focuses on the negatives without considering the positives. The NAWALT (the perfect woman with no negatives) and the AWALT (the always evil every woman) are caricatures. Real women, just like men, have strengths and weaknesses.

The irony is that it’s trivial to prove—both anecdotally and as a group—that many women make great wives. It’s also trivial to prove that many women destroy the lives of men. Examples of these, and those in between, are easily found across age, religion, and ethnicity.

There is a place for discussing the negatives, but no relationship can survive a primary focus on negatives. Focusing on the benefits changes your perspective. I don’t have a NAWALT, I have a relationship with many different categories of benefits that far outweigh the downsides. We work through our problems, but we live through our strengths.

My wife has held certain feminist-inspired viewpoints. Do they end our relationship? Of course not. She can have her own opinions and it isn’t the end of the world. Compromise is a vital marital component. She’s not a unicorn because she’s perfect, she’s a unicorn because we don’t toss out those benefits because of a few negatives. We actually like and appreciate each other.

Marriage has always consisted of two imperfect people pairing up and finding a way to make it work. This didn’t begin or end with feminism. You try hard to find the right woman, but the work doesn’t end there. The relationship is dynamic. She’ll change and you’ll change. The latter is hard to accept.

Compromise, trade-offs, and changes cannot safely be avoided. Feminism has taught women that if they are unhappy or do not have perfection, then they should bail out and look for it elsewhere. This cancer is just as bad when men embrace it in their search for women. Goose and gander.

Throwing away the basis for society—marriage and family—because women are not perfect is worse than misguided. Throwing away the basis for society because it is difficult to find a good match is equally mistaken. It’s smart to be selective about who to marry, but avoiding marriage entirely is not a solution. You can’t destroy civilization to save it.

You marry because the benefits you receive will outweigh the negatives you’ll choose to accept. Expecting a marriage without negatives is unrealistic. That unicorn you married will have spots and blemishes. It turns out that this is okay. The unicorn was always a myth anyway.

* Or get lucky

 Ballista’s assertions to the contrary are mistaken.

 Contrast this with those men and women who advocate and hold absolute, uncompromising, binary positions (e.g. All women this, every women that; no this or that is possible).

Saving Civilization From Itself

(re)productive capital

In my previous post, Does Marriage Keep Society Afloat?, I argued that it is essential to marry and have children to stem off a global financial downturn. The concept is simple: without a large tax base, the population gets top heavy and expenses exceed resources available. Costs go up leading to fewer and fewer marriages and pregnancies, creating a self-feeding, self-fulfilling downward spiral.

In the comment section, I explored a few unsatisfactory ways to address the problem. Sigma Frame discusses a few others. I ended with the only sensible alternative:

“The only way out of this, without significant side effects, is to support marriage and increase family sizes. This requires abolishing abortion and defeating feminism. I’ve stated this before and I’ll say it again and again. The refusal to marry and have children (e.g. MGTOW) is actively harmful and contributes to the self-feeding destructive downward cycle. I don’t care what the excuses are for not marrying and having children. Make it work. Otherwise wave the white flag and embrace feminism.”

Brother Ballista took issue with this:

Ramsey wants men to embrace feminism by getting married and having children. Therein lies the problem as Ramsey sees it – the weak men just aren’t playing along to make feminism work.

With all due respect, Brother Ballista is wrong. Marriage and family are not feminist concepts. They are the foundations of functioning society and must be embraced. They need to be taken back from the feminists, so to speak.

Defeating feminism is required to fully support marriage and increase family sizes. It’s an absurd strawman to say that this means men should marry feminists and have their babies. Of course they shouldn’t.* It’s also absurd to say that my statement only applies to men. Those men and women who refuse to marry and have children might as well throw in the towel.

Brother Earl is a perfect example of what I’m suggesting. He is a front line soldier with skin in the game. He is doing all he can to make it work. He is not making excuses. He is not compromising. He is constantly railing against what matters most: abortion, divorce, sexual immorality, and contraception. He is always seeking a wife and if he finds one, he will be making babies in no time.

He also can’t do it on his own. He needs others to support him. He needs unmarried men to join him in these areas. He needs women to take marriage seriously and permanently. He needs happily married people to have more children, not stop at the magical two or three. He needs priests and pastors to explicitly push this and a church that will fight for it.

But make no mistake: if we don’t increase good marriages and the number of children in those marriages, feminism will win. None of the excuses, soapboxing, moaning and complaining will mean a thing if we don’t do this.

Feminists might breed themselves out of existence by refusing to reproduce, but who is going to replace them if the anti-feminists also refuse to reproduce? Where are the future anti-feminists going to come from? Feminism only needs to indoctrinate the children. Our counter is marriage and family. It’s the only one we have. We must find ways to do it and stop making excuses for not doing it.‡

When the Brothers scoff at having more children, their anti-feminist stances become meaningless. Words and actions must go together. When they recommend against a proper marriage, they fight against the very tool required to solve the problem. Avoiding marriage and family is counterproductive, no matter how well-intentioned.

It is entirely possible for a man to wife up a (hopefully repentant) feminist or single mother. Many do, as is their right as a man. Doing so is, of course, quite risky, but a man who chooses to do so needs our support, not our criticism.

† Not all men are marriage material, due to whatever personal flaws they might have. Such men should obviously not get married without making themselves marriage-worthy, but they can still do their part in the meantime by supporting those who are marriage-worthy.

‡ It is entirely possible that the entire system will have to burn to the ground before it can be resurrected. This is not ideal. We should avoid this outcome if at all possible by trying to fix the system as soon as possible, rather than waiting for some undetermined future, and possibly imaginary, inflection point.

Creative Commons LicenseArticle text and photos by Derek L. Ramsey is licensed under a CC-BY-SA 4.0 License.

Does Marriage Keep Society Afloat?

Pyramid Japan 1950

Under there Boxer made the following statement worthy of explication.

“My interest in the topic is entirely pragmatic. Without marriage, the surplus labor in a society disappears, industry declines, and the standards-of-living crash. Those of us who live without a wife owe a great debt to the men who are keeping society afloat, and it is in everyone’s interest that the institution of marriage reproduce itself across time.”

To understand why this is true, let’s examine the population pyramid. In a healthy society there are always greater number of younger persons than older persons. Combined with low mortality rates, the population will steadily climb as the large base marries and produces children. Each generation produces more total children than the previous generation so the pattern holds.

Economically, the pyramid shape leads to ever increasing productivity and growth. Consider the population pyramid for 1950 Japan shown above. Those 0 to 9 year old children became the prime economic producers in their 30’s, 40’s, and 50’s leading to an economic boom:


Unfortunately, the sexual revolution taught the world to separate reproduction from sex and people stopped having children. Reproduction rates in many countries (including the United States) have since fallen below replacement. The result is the decline of society, industry, and high standards-of-living.

Pyramid Japan 1950 and 2017

This graph overlays the 2017 population pyramid on top of the 1950 pyramid. Japan’s population pyramid has now inverted. The base is much smaller than the top. The bulk of Japan’s working population is about to hit retirement and there are not enough children to pay for their retirement expenses. China, after having experienced a similar economic boom, is now facing a similar population problem. Both countries are about to experience a major economic squeeze due to underpopulation.

Pyramid US 1950 and 2017

Compared to Japan’s and China’s inverted pyramid, the United States is relatively much better off. Its pyramid reflects reduced reproduction rates, but from 1950 to 2017, the changes have not been quite so dramatic. However, the failure to reproduce since the 60’s is going to be increasingly felt in tightening standards of living.


(modified from this source)

As a result of the sexual revolution and feminism, pregnancy, birth, and marriage rates have fallen to historic lows while abortion continues to be the hidden leading cause of death in America. So why has the U.S. not declined as fast as other countries? Immigration. The United States imports millions of working-age adults and children.

Immigrants, especially illegal immigrants, are initially a large economic drain. It takes until the second generation before the investment starts paying off. First- and second-generation immigrants are projected to make up 93% of the workforce growth by 2050. To maintain economic prosperity we are replacing native births with immigrants, for better or worse. (Citation: Pew Research Center)

It’s still not enough to stem the tide. Despite a flood of immigrants, the birth rate continues to decline. The only alternative to societal decay and economic collapse is for married families to have more children. We do owe a debt to those 24 million families with children that are holding us up, be they immigrant or native, but we need more.

Related: The Consequences of Feminism

Creative Commons LicenseArticle text by Derek L. Ramsey is licensed under a CC-BY-SA 4.0 License.