Posted on 12/03/2008 4:28:39 PM PST by Publius804
Abortion and the Rights of Fathers
by Armstrong Williams
A fundamental assumption leading to the Supreme Court's decision in Roe v. Wade was that because women are biologically tied to the birth process, they should therefore bear all responsibility in deciding the life or death of their children. The reason for this perspective is straightforward: Roe v. Wade rejected the idea that another person controlled a woman's body. On the one hand, this shattered patriarchal stereotypes that regarded women as little more than vessels. Plainly that is a good thing. But in the continued fight for equality, various feminist groups have refused to acknowledge the basic human rights of the co-equal contributors to pregnancy: the unborn child and the father. Plainly, that is a bad thing.
Just ask John Stachokus. Not long ago, Stachokus planned to have a child with his 23-year-old girlfriend. Together, they picked out the child's name and godparents. He proudly imagined what it would be like to start a family; this made him happy. Then one day, his girlfriend abruptly decided to terminate her pregnancy. She was reacting to pressure from her parents, Stachokus says. He responded by obtaining an injunction, temporarily prohibiting her from having an abortion, which a court rejected. And just that quickly, Stachokus's hopes and dreams for his child dissolved.
It did not matter to the court that Stachokus was willing to take full responsibility for nurturing and providing for the child. His basic human rights did not factor into the court's decision. All that mattered was that his girlfriend suddenly changed her mind and decided to murder their unborn baby. As far as the court was concerned, Stachokus had no say in the life of his own child. The court regarded him as little more than a soulless contributor of DNA.
(Excerpt) Read more at insidecatholic.com ...
Been there.
The only creature with fewer “rights” than a male is a white male.
>The court regarded him as little more than a soulless contributor of DNA.
Whoo-hoo! I’m nothing more than a sperm-generator! [/sarc]
I feel so empty inside... [/cynic][/sarc]
>Been there.
Oh, do you want to tell that story?
Unsolicited Legal Memorandum: you are correct.
Oh, do you want to tell that story?”
Sorry, not really. Wounds heal - scars remain.
>Sorry, not really. Wounds heal - scars remain.
Understandable.
Uh-huh. Just for the sake of argument, let's say they were in complete and total agreement that the child would be aborted but the woman chose to give birth without telling the father and he refused to provide child support for the next 18 years.
What do you think the court would rule?
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.