Posted on 06/20/2010 6:03:19 PM PDT by Kaslin
It would still be a problem. If a married women chooses to have an abortion, or have her tubes tied, the husband's wishes are legally irrelevant.
If the man has no rights over whether the child is born, then he should have no responsibilities at all towards the child either.
I absolutely agree.
I understand your thinking but I can’t quite go along with it. If a woman chooses to NOT abort her child suddenly the “sperm donor” is liable for child support. He has financial obligation in the one case but no voice if she makes the opposite decision. Men who are really only sperm donors are not expected to support a child.
All too often married men are no more than sperm donors who DO have financial obligations. I know one right now who is living with the wicked witch of the East because he is afraid she will go back to Indonesia with their two daughters. The girls are American citizens but he has been advised by an attorney that if she leaves him the courts will almost certainly allow her to take the girls back to Indonesia with her. Marriage is stacked against men now.
I understand your thinking but I can’t quite go along with it. If a woman chooses to NOT abort her child suddenly the “sperm donor” is liable for child support. He has financial obligation in the one case but no voice if she makes the opposite decision. Men who are really only sperm donors are not expected to support a child.
All too often married men are no more than sperm donors who DO have financial obligations. I know one right now who is living with the wicked witch of the East because he is afraid she will go back to Indonesia with their two daughters. The girls are American citizens but he has been advised by an attorney that if she leaves him the courts will almost certainly allow her to take the girls back to Indonesia with her. Marriage is stacked against men now.
Marriage comes with financial obligations to wife and child and rights to the children that I believe are only accessable to all parties with marriage. Social engineering law is bad on all sides. IF you read upthread you will see that I think that unmarried men should have no financial obligation and no rights to children born without marriage.
I didn’t get the sense it was a very serious relationship.
It’s not discrimination against men to allow them no say in whether a woman has an abortion. That’s only the logical end of the pro-abortion position.
Think about it. Pro-abortionists do not ascribe humanity to the unborn. They don’t recognize an unborn baby as a child at all; of course they won’t recognize him as somebody’s child. They call a baby a “blob of cells”, and act as if eliminating him is the equivalent of having an appendectomy. Who would require a woman to get her husband/boyfriend’s permission before having an appendectomy?
You can’t really say, “A man should have a say in whether or not his child is killed!” He shouldn’t. Neither should a woman have a say in whether her child is killed. A child has the right to live and the man’s view on the matter is as irrelevant as the woman’s.
I realize that it’s very hard for men to be powerless to stop the abortion of their children. But by all logic, there are two positions: One, a fetus is a blob of cells with no humanity, and it’s up to the woman whether or not she wants it growing in her body. Two, the fetus is a human baby and it’s up to neither the woman nor the man.
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.