Some days the anti-feminists just make it too easy.

I’ve said it before, and I’ll day it again: MensNewsDaily just keeps giving and giving. (Remember the fart button?)

Today, we are treated to Grooms For Life, or as Vanessa at Feministing (who gets the hat tip) says, “The pro-life prince has arrived.”

Is there a way to radically decrease abortions without asking the government to do it? Adoption is often suggested here and that is a good alternative but I think there is another as well.

Marriage. I am not talking just about a return to the “shotgun marriage”; rather, I think an offer of marriage from a man who is not the father but will assume all the traditional responsibilities of fatherhood would be accepted by many unmarried pregnant women…

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.

Now don’t start protesting Denise Noe’s spectacular idea just yet. She knows there are going to be objections. Two, in fact.

1. “Such couples would not be in love, so what chance would their marriages have of succeeding?” Don’t worry, Denise has got that all worked out. First of all, there are arranged marriages in lots of societies, so quitcher bitchin’, you spoiled American shits. Secondly, “Pro-life marriages would have major advantages over other unions: the men would know they have done a good deed in saving a baby from abortion and, thus, keenly look forward to the birth; the women would respect the moral sincerity of their new husbands.” This is an excellent point. When Mr. Shakes and I got married, he only had the happiness of marrying a woman he loved without the added benefit of the ego-boost that comes with rescuing someone from certain despair. And I had no idea whether he was morally sincere or not. Four years into our marriage, with no pregnancy in sight, I’m still not certain. It’s a delicate precipice we hang on, people.

2. “A second objection is that if men offer to marry pregnant women to insure the baby’s birth, women will deliberately get pregnant in order to nab a pro-life hubby.” That is a big concern, all right. But Denise swiftly knocks this one down, too. “Most women are quite rational people…” (here I thought, Yes! We’re actually heading into pro-choice territory here! but then I read the rest of the sentence) “and will realize that the number of Grooms For Life will not exceed the demand for them. Additionally, 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.” I’ll leave you to parse that one out in comments.

Personally, I can think of a few other objections to this proposal, but I’m going to go ahead and assume they’d be evident to anyone with a functioning brain. Instead, I’ll just leave with you with Denise’s vision of our Grooms for Life-filled future:

[F]emale pro-lifers and married men could spend their time recruiting bachelors to their cause so that the screaming demonstrators outside abortion clinics would soon be replaced by swains in bow ties, holding rings and serenading the pregnant women.

Wow. Utopia.