Replies

"Nowhere in the series is there a suggestion that somebody, aside from the statistics collectors, is making a mistake, that some societal acceptance is now also a recipe for death. There is a hint of it when Pat Brown, a criminal profiler from Minneapolis, is quoted as saying, "If the woman doesn't want the baby, she can get an abortion. If the guy doesn't want it, he can't do a damn thing about it. He is stuck with the child for the rest of his life, and he's stuck with that woman for the rest of his life. If she goes away, the problem goes away." In other words, the acceptance of unmarried pregnancy, by the subject of it and by her family and friends, carries with it a measure of danger."

"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.

Here is another great example of the down the rabbit hole insanity that abortion "law" is. A few years ago in Chicago, a married manager of a fast food resturant was charged with the murder of his girlfriend and her unborn child. It seems that he knocked her up, and she came to extort him for hush money, part of which was to go for an abortion. He killed her because he didn't want to pay. While the charges for her murder are to be expected, I was struck as to how there was almost no discussion of the fact that he got charged for achieving precisely the same objective for the child that the "mother " was seeking and that she would have been entirely free of legal consequence for by having the deed performed by a medical hitman.