Replies

This is a great expose of how I can be of the opinion that Abortion (with both parent's consent) should be legal...but I think it is imperative to overturn RvW.

I can't say that I agree entirely with the article. There really are two America's and it has nothing to do with the class warfare Demonrats shove down our throats. The essence of America is freedom, and thus it is two different ideas of freedom that American's differ on.

One idea of freedom is the ability to do whatever one wants, the other is the ability to do what is right.

Clearly our founding fathers did not arbitrarily create a democracy with the people left to do whatever they please. Our founding fathers sought a greater good, a good that can only be attained by free assent to that good and this is the role of the Constitution. It is meant to create fertile ground for its citizens to attain the Good while at the same time not telling us how we as individuals are to attain that Good. This is why abortion should be legal. This is not about women having the freedom to do whatever they want, it is about the Constitution defending the freedom to do what is right and in NO circumstances can a free nation remain free when we allow the slaughter of our future generations.

"Reproductive Rights" is one of those public issues where the inequality between the sexes is rarely discussed.

Reproductive rights does not exist as a legal concept for men, and men are regularly told that they have responsibilities and not rights. A man has no "reproductive rights" that a woman is bound to respect, whether in nor out of marriage, to keep the baby or not. The only right that men have is to keep their pants zipped up, as the course of their lives and their hope for posterity is entirely dependent on the woman's "choice".

I remember hearing a feminazi screeching about how vital "reproductive rights " were for all human beings, insofar as their ability to determine the course of their lives is concerned. It got me to wondering how it is that no comparable "reproductive right" exists for men other than the right to keep your trousers zipped up. A man's income can involuntarily be confiscated to care for children that he does not want, affecting the course of his life. Under the law, he is utterly responsible to support any children with his DNA, and often even for those without it. In many states, women are allowed to ABANDON newborn children that they do not want at hospitals or firehouses, no questions asked. Men don't even have any "reproductive rights" in marriage, because his wife retains her "reproductive rights" if she "chooses" to exercise them.

I don't think either sex should have these "reproductive rights", and should deal with the concequences of a pregnancy, wanted or not. But if as the feminazi says, these rights are vital to human beings, than I wish to suggest the following remedies. An unmarried man, upon being promptly notified of an unwanted pregnacy by his mate, should have the option of a paternal veto (abortion) absolving him of financial and legal responsibility for the child. A married man who discovers that his wife has had an abortion against his wishes should recieve presumptive grounds for a divorce or annullment of the marriage, with the same holding true for one who concieves against his wishes.

Than again maybe the feminazi thinks that men shouldn't qualify for "reproductive rights" since she probably thinks men aren't human anyway.