Pennsylvania Abortion Case Raises Question of Choice for Men

CNS News ^ | 8.8.02 | Glenn Sacks and Dianna Thompson

[eaglebeak]

Abortion is widespread and accessable. If states could make laws restricting it, the above problem would not exist.

Historically, this has not proven to be the case.

[eaglebeak]

I can't believe anyone would say that. Should the female not get sterilized too? Why is it that the male has most of the responsibility (other than carrying the child till birth) and 0% of the choices?

Why or how do you think that the male has most of the responsibility? And yes, a female should do whatever she can to avoid getting pregnant if she doesn't want to get pregnant. So should a male. But we rarely see males taking on the responsibility of birth control. There hasn't been much birth control available for males and not enough emphasis on the importance of using what little they do have.

[Outlaw76]

Why or how do you think that the male has most of the responsibility?

Easy, Woman decides she doesn't wanna be a mom she can:
1) Kill the Child
2) Give the Child up for adoption
3) Dump the Child on a relitive
4) Dump the Child on the father
5) Dump the Child on the state

Consequenses: NONE

Dad decides he doesn't wanna be responsible he can:
1) Not pay child support.

Consequenses: Man becomes a Fellon, branded a criminal for the rest of his days.

Now if one wants to be a parent..
She:
delivers the child.

He:
Has no choice, his baby dies at the hands of the woman and her doctor.

Understand now?

[William Terrell]

Historically, this has not proven to be the case.

In a state that had a law against abortion, I would doubt that a court would award a man one for a woman he knocked up.

[eaglebeak]

Understand now?

I understand that your post is full of so much vitriol against women as to be truly delusional. Other than that, it makes no sense at all.

Now if one wants to be a parent..
She:
delivers the child.

He:
Has no choice, his baby dies at the hands of the woman and her doctor

The woman delivers a child and the child dies at the hands of the woman and her doctor? What do they do, strangle the poor kid?

Clarity, over emotion, would be most appreciated, Outlaw.

[Harrison Bergeron]

"...if they had kept their pants on..."

That argument conveniently omits that women wear pants nowadays too. It also treats women as victims of evil men regardless of what negative consequences their own actions may bring their way. It's demeaning to women in the same way the welfare and equal opportunity state is demeaning to minorities. It also sets men up as a class of humans to be hated and reviled. Thanks for your liberal feminist (or was it narrowmindedly chivalrous?) insight.

[eaglebeak]

Easy, Woman decides she doesn't wanna be a mom she can:
1) Kill the Child
2) Give the Child up for adoption
3) Dump the Child on a relitive
4) Dump the Child on the father
5) Dump the Child on the state

Consequenses: NONE

Sorry, I can't agree with you here. There are plenty of consequences, for any of the above.

Dad decides he doesn't wanna be responsible he can:
1) Not pay child support.
Consequenses: Man becomes a Fellon, branded a criminal for the rest of his days.

Failure to pay child support is a felony now?

[Harrison Bergeron]

"When does a man get to exercise his choice? I'd suggest it's starts before ejaculation. "

If you deny that a woman's "choice" begins when she opens her legs, I would consider it bigotry, pure and simple. Regardless, who effed who should have no bearing on the decision to murder an unborn child.

[eaglebeak]

If you deny that a woman's "choice" begins when she opens her legs, I would consider it bigotry, pure and simple. Regardless, who effed who should have no bearing on the decision to murder an unborn child.

But it does. Because if nobody irresponsibly effed anyone in the first place, the point would be moot.

[Harrison Bergeron]

It's logic like yours - assigning all responibilities and consequences of the sexual act to men - that allows radical feminists to say thing like "All heterosexual sex is rape."

[flyervet]

Unfortunately, irresponsible effing was invented about five minutes after effing in the first place.

[Lorianne]

Two wrongs don't make a right.

What you are proposing is punishing the child so that men gain some king of psuedo-equality with women who abort.

I cannot fathom why a person would lobby for equal "rights" for himself at the expense of a child, particularly one's own child.

Also, if the child is born the father is punishing the child because the woman COULD HAVE had the abortion and didn't. So he is really exactly retribution from the child for the actions of other women, not the child's mother, or he is saying that the child must pay a price for being born.

I find all this reasoning illogical at best, nauseating is moe like it. Since when do we expressly punish people for being born?

[Harrison Bergeron]

Radical feminists - the most politically successful ideological Marxists in America - laugh up their sleeves at "Choice for Men." Were such a thing ever to pass, they will have finally won the "gender war" that these lesbian seperatists have waged for so long and foisted on mainstream heterosexual women. Whatever high ground men can claim in their defense of the family will be lost. Whatever credibility the term "men's rights" may have gathered since the publication of "The Myth of Male Power" would be squandered to the leftist idea of "group identity." But it's a non-issue. Men will see Western civilization collapse before they return social and political fire on women and children. I would argue that this is exactly what is happening around us today.

[DNA Rules]

I am 100% anti-death and pro-life, but so long as a woman can control the life and death of a man's child, the man should have the right to choose whether or not he will have any part in the child's life.

My disagreement begins with the phrase bolded above. There is nothing that can follow that particular "so long as...". Once a man/father surrenders to anyone else his right to protect his biological child from conception forward, the war, for his own life to mean anything and for society to have any foundation at all, is already lost.

It is evil that anyone can kill a child through abortion. It is just plain wrong that a man has no way to protect the life of his child.

True. And for those who say that a paternal veto will never happen, I could offer a laundry list of things people said will never happen...the Pennsylvania case brought this into the mainstream spotlight like nothing else ever has, and there is a lot more where that came from. This is the beginning of the most massive social upheaval in human history, centered upon the most fundamental element of our lives; the right to love and protect our children, from the beginning.

[DNA Rules]

Extremely well said.

[DNA Rules]

Of course he's right and has been wronged; but there must be something wrong with it. He's a man.

Seriously, what would you venture is the societal basis for that mentality?

[eaglebeak]

It's logic like yours - assigning all responibilities and consequences of the sexual act to men - that allows radical feminists to say thing like "All heterosexual sex is rape."

I most certainly do not and have not. Can you show me where I have?

[eaglebeak]

Unfortunately, irresponsible effing was invented about five minutes after effing in the first place.

That almost sounds like a Mark Twain quote. ;-) He referred to it as "practing the art," I believe.

[X-Servative]

NO SAY...NO PAY!!

Simple logic to me...

[Lorianne]

This is STILL punishing the child for being born. That's all it is.

Abortion is punishing a child for being conceived.
Paper abortion is punishing the child for being born.

The difference is only a matter of degree. However it is the same basic reasoning behind both proposals. Both victimize the child in order to gain some kind of psuedo "right" for the adult at the expense of the child. What we are talking about is equal rights to victimize the weakest members of society.