Posted on 02/26/2007 3:09:26 PM PST by ConservativeStatement
February 26, 2007 -- Giants star Amani Toomer is splitting with his wife, claiming she not only reneged on a pact to have kids with the veteran wide receiver but went so far as to abort four pregnancies, according to bombshell court papers.
Toomer has sued to annul his marriage to Dr. Yola Dabrowski, who won't get a dime if a judge upholds Toomer's argument that she committed "fraud" when they wed. She is seeking a divorce.
The divorce trial is set to begin tomorrow in Hudson County, N.J., Family Court.
Toomer, 32, alleges his wife refused to have the "big family" they had discussed before getting hitched in a Las Vegas civil ceremony in October 2002.
"This false promise was never delivered," he charges in documents filed in court.
Instead, Dabrowski "had up to four" abortions "against Toomer's wishes [and] without his consent," the Giant claims.
(Excerpt) Read more at nypost.com ...
But he keeps sleeping with her after the first, second, third and probably forth? They're both nuts.
Sounds like the doctor has been doing some gold diggin'.
Witrh a dead soul like hers, she won't even make a good wife for a liberal ... she's the only god in her life and she will be worshipped or she will move on.
There are so many strange accusations from both parties, it's hard to know what to believe!
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 LEGAL "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.
Again, I think that BOTH parties should allow a normal pregnancy to take it's course, and come to a mutually agreed upon resolution. But if we insist upon a regime where a "reproductive right" is allowed for only half of the human race, than I think that men should have some LEGAL option to influence the woman's "choice" in either direction, rather than act as though this isn't a significant life altering event for them as well. The one option that I would absolutely forbid, of course is a forced abortion. Consider paternal veto for unmarried men or presumptive divorce grounds for a married man whose wife "chooses" against his wishes.
Having said all this, I do think it unlikely to happen. Men are legally held to the strictest standard of responsibility where conception is concerned.
Well I for one support her wise decision to have four abortions. Murder is a small price to pay to keep that girlish figure. Oh sorry, I meant "serial murder".
That, my friend, is deceit. They use the word to stretch normalcy over deviance, but the true meaning is not there.
Amani should have had a clue right there...
LOL
You are making the assumption that he knew about each and every abortion. I lean towards him not knowing up until recently. But I could be wrong. It has happened before. ;)
All I can say is wow--she must be nuts.
Yep. I had the wrong pic. Thanks.
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.