Posted on 09/02/2009 11:24:57 AM PDT by Lorianne
Waaaaayyy overdue.
Count me on board.
Either you give a father veto power or you don't.
And they won't. (Or rather, if they do, it'll be struck down.)
This is one reason why marriage was more prevalent decades ago -- before paternity tests it was easier for men to deny they were the father of a girl's child, and walk away. And it was much harder for a mother to make it without a husband. This created a big incentive to at least try to confine sex to marriage. Earlier marriage helped as well.
Oh, I certainly would be for recognizing the full personhood of the unborn.
I just feel for the dads who want to keep and raise their kids who currently have no say in the matter.
What about the BABY’S say in the matter?
Of course as we know a baby can’t vocalize an opinion. His parents are supposed to advocate for him. To my despair, maybe a third of the mothers arrange for their children to be killed.
Perhaps with dad involved their odds would improve somewhat. If dad wants an abortion, too, then it wouldn’t help. But I have made the acquaintance of fathers desperate to save their babies’ lives who had no legal say. They could have made a difference if they had a legal standing.
“While we’re on this subject, can someone tell me why a man who kills a pregnant woman and her fetus can be charged with double homicide but an abortion doctor or a woman who kills her own fetus cannot be charged with murder? I don’t understand.”
It’s called cognitive dissonance. There is no logic there.
Seems to me that if a woman bears 100% of the responsibility for the choice to have an abortion, she should bear 100% of the burden for the consequences of having the child. A father, therefore, should be able to opt out of paying child support.
100% her decision, 100% her financial burden.
Fair is fair.
Fair, except for to the child.
True, but I’m just trying to make the liberal world view more consistent, that’s all.
As long as he is forced to pay child support, he should have a say.
Plus it will blow away the pro-choice argument that “if the baby is unwanted, it will have a miserable life any way.” Obviously if the father wants to raise the child, the child is not unwanted.
The father can keep his swimmers to himself if he's really that worried.
They need to push this over and over and over until one day it goes through.
No surrender.
They can check DNA after with a giant fine for a mismatch.
That would scare away fraudulent stand-ins.
Fathers have a natural right to protect the lives of their children from conception forward: the law has to recognize that.
No. The right to save the life of one’s child does not in any way confer a right to desert one’s child.
Your view of fatherhood is reprehensibly ugly.
It has to happen. Depriving fathers of their natural right to protect their own daughters and sons is the death of the human race.
Counterproductively fatalistic much?
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.