Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

To: IronJack; Lorianne
It's about a woman's SOLE right to choose death for her AND THE FATHER'S child. The father is always the culprit when the bills come due, but he's not supposed to have any say in how the child is raised, or even if it survives the womb.Yeah, THAT'S equitable.

Slightly ironic that Russia is looking to institute a law guaranteeing a father's right to protect the life of his own preborn child... whereas in America, pro-lifers ignore the existence of good fathers completely.

9 posted on 11/26/2006 12:47:45 PM PST by Giant Conservative
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies ]


To: Giant Conservative

"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.

My point is that men have no "reproductive right" that is INDEPENDENT of a woman's choice, wheras women have options that can be and are exercised independently of a man's wishes. Note that this feminine reproductive veto extends to nullification of the man's wishes whether the man wants the child or not, whether in or out of marriage. While I am acutely aware that this is in large part due to the uniqueness of the reproductive process, this nevertheless leaves the man without any independent ability to influence the woman legally.

I am not even necessarily saying that this is a bad thing, but I do find it curious that we often behave as though the only party affected by the birth of a child is the woman, and to prevent a negative influence on the course of her life we must preserve her right to kill her unborn child. If unmarried, she can "choose" to keep the child and can enlist the support of the state to forcibly take money from the sperm donor against his will. And if he wants the child, then he must yield to her choice to abort.

The common response to the man is that you should have been more careful in your choice of partner, or you should have kept your trousers zipped up. Legally he is told that he has no option other than the one that the woman "chooses" to give him.

Having said all this, I do think it unlikely to happen. Men are legally held to the strictest of standard of responsibility where conception is concerned.


18 posted on 11/26/2006 5:59:27 PM PST by DMZFrank
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 9 | View Replies ]

To: Giant Conservative

Not necessarily, heard children do proportionately better in single-father households. Must be the discipline thing giving stability. Feminism is so strong in America, our kids don't know much about strong, intelligent, honorable, respectable men. My son just watched Patton & loved it. We love Rambo & Rocky, too. We need a 21st century Father knows best. I would bet if more men fought for the life of their pre-born, women would listen. Taming of the shrew. Do I hear a cat-fight outside?


22 posted on 11/26/2006 8:25:53 PM PST by huldah1776 (Worthy is the Lamb.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 9 | View Replies ]

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article


FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson