Posted on 12/16/2005 4:00:32 PM PST by Mrs. Don-o
[Just as women should not be punished for choosing to terminate a pregnancy, men should not be punished when those women choose not to.]
For pro-choicers like myself, Supreme Court nominee Samuel A. Alito Jr.'s position regarding spousal consent for abortion seems like one more loose rock in the ongoing erosion of Roe vs. Wade. ...[but]I wonder if this idea of choice is being fairly applied.
...[W]hat about the kind of life men want to lead? ...why shouldn't men have the right during at least the first trimester of pregnancy to terminate their legal and financial rights and responsibilities to the child?
...the law does not currently allow for men to protect the futures of the fetuses they help create. What he doesn't mention -- indeed, no one ever seems to -- is the degree to which men also cannot protect their own futures. The way the law is now, a man who gets a woman pregnant is not only powerless to force her to terminate the pregnancy, he also has a complete legal obligation to support that child for at least 18 years.
In other words, although women are able to take control of their futures by choosing from at least a small range of options -- abortion, adoption or keeping the child -- a man can be forced to be a father to a child he never wanted and cannot financially support. I even know of cases in which the woman absolves the man of responsibility, only to have the courts demand payment anyway. That takes the notion of "choice" very far from anything resembling equality.
I realize I've just alienated feminists ...
(Excerpt) Read more at startribune.com ...
It is the dis-assembling at all things which are connected at the heart of human experience.
It is mating that leaves you with no mate. Love-making that leaves you with no love. The marital act that leaves you unmarried, and the motions of baby-making that leave you laying on a table in the stupid lithotomy position, leaking bloody shards.
No responsibility on either side. Equal boinking with equal oinking. Equal hell for equal hubris.
Sex with no other ultimate ambition than to be perpetually plugged into its own sockets, connected to nothing, forever.
A dismembered life, with the dismembered baby both its major product and its most vivid and self-explanatory emblem.
ping
thing is 2 wrongs don't make a right! Abortion is wrong and murder. A man wanting to get a choice too all because abortion is legal is wrong. We conservatives don't accept abortion and we shouldn't accept a man getting to walk away from his child either.
It's not the law, but it is certainly the reality, thanks largely to Roe. Pregnancy is a woman's "problem" today, whether she kills her baby or raises the child. No more of those shotgun weddings. In fact, if a dad decides to opt out of his responsibilities years after a birth, when the kid is no longer all that cute, few people even blink. I think that is one of the major legacies of this super-duper precedent the libs love so much.
If a man doesn't want a baby, he should wear a condom.
Or, women can assert the right to choose to murder their mate, also, at their discretion. Why not?
"[Just as women should not be punished for choosing to terminate a pregnancy, men should not be punished when those women choose not to.]"
The ancient Israelites knew how to deal with fornicators. Be glad you live in our liberal society, whoremonger.
If a woman doesn't want a baby, she should wear a diaphragm ...
exactly and if a woman doesn't want a baby she should be protecting herself from a pg happening as well. Abortion or walking away is never the solution!
Amen!
Unfortunately, our depraved "laws" permit women to slaughter the most helpless of people, without legal consequence. Worse, some supposedly 'intelligent' people think that's a Good Thing.
If we're going to have equality under the law, then either abortion must be forbidden or "walking away" must become a protected right.
OK, that makes a kind of instant and intuitive sense. It's what I would have said --- what I did say --- when I was about 19 years old. A long, long, time ago.
Turns out, though, that history and human experience proved me wrong. Turns out that for people who are young, fertile, and sexually febrile, reliance on a condom virtually guarantees pregnancy. This is because, while it reduces the statistical likelihood of pregnancy per each use, it also increases the frequency of intercourse, thus making pregnancy very likely over a given period of time.
That's illustrated by the fact that, although you can get condoms at any truckstop, 7-11, Walgreen's, Wal-Mart, K-Mart or Kroger in the United States (and get them free at your local County Health Dept. or PP-type sex service shop) --- and although they are tirelessly touted as the veritable Holy Grail of personal hygiene, right up there with Dental Floss --- we still have over a million kids snuffed every year.
And another million born to see no more of Daddy than the back of his jacket and the bottom of his Reeboks.
And the condom slip-rip-and-drip phenomenon isn't the main problem. The main problem is junk sex. Unconnected sex.
And a condom is a barrier, after all. That suggests that on the level intimate attachment, where heart, soul and body are supposed to connect, person to person--- it's not part of the solution. It's part of the pollution.
Abortion should be made illegal, end of discussion. Like I said before, 2 wrongs don't make things right!
Right-o Mrs. Don-o
Of course a pro-life person can not make this argument but for the pro-death side, it is perfectly logical.
Has it not yet been tried by some man to get out of child support?
Whatever happened to "equal protection under the law"?
Any man can opt out of fatherhood by remaining chaste.
And if a woman doesn't want a baby, she shouldn't have sex.
Actually, that applies to men as well.
When the various states are calculated for number of abortions per capita, some states show higher rates than others. [This is also true for racial groupings, but we won’t go too much there in this screed.] If the laws governing abortion were written and enforced at the state levels, individually, and not controlled by the Roe and Casey and Doe Federal decisions (through the U.S. Supreme Court), what would be the long-term effect, statistically?
The truth is so shocking when considered, it is not a stretch to believe the DNC and liberals in general have realized the effect and thus have become even more determined to keep the Roe ruling as the law of the land! Let’s peel the banana and take a look at the very real potentialities of repealing Roe and Doe and Casey.
In effect, what we’re suggesting is a complete reversal of what the rulings in Roe, Doe, and Casey accomplished. Those rulings by the U.S. Supreme Court accomplished the nullification of state statutes in effect that regulated abortion in the various individual states. Famous abortion related cases arose in Texas, Pennsylvania and other states, but the rulings set precedent for the nation as a whole (the Stenberg v Carhardt ruling was over a Nebraska statute banning partial birth abortion, but the effect was a nationwide prevention of such statutes taking effect in other states that had addressed the horror).
Within eighteen to twenty years, the number of citizens in the liberalized abortion states would fall behind that of the more restrictive states. As demographics shift, so does voting power! Some would argue that females in restrictive states will just drive to the more liberal state to hire a serial killer. Yes, they will, but the very presence of laws restricting the killing to only the most dire circumstances will have an influence on the developing children/teens and upon women for whom truth can still help them make life choices. Eventually, the states where restriction is signed into law will become the more populace, overall.
Actuarial statistics are cold and impersonal. It is a fact that if the nation was moving toward a more liberal climate in the 1970’s, abortion killed off 44,000,000 potential liberals since 1973. Oh, to be sure, not all would have been liberal as they matured, but the greater number would have been because the trend was in that direction and is still in that direction, even with a significant percentage of 44,000,000 not around to bolster the liberal tides!
One final vague substantiating note: has Jesse Jackson or any other Politically motivated race peddler ever explained what the loss of so many aborted black children has meant to the demographics of blacks in American population percentages? No, and they wouldn’t dare, because what these spiritually bankrupt people have been championing for three decades has actually resulted in black people becoming a lessened demographic percent of population while other minorities have risen, minorities that didn’t practice such high rates of abortion over the same three decades.
There are other factors in demographics that effect population percentages, but actuarial tables would certainly show a paradigm shift in the nation’s population centers, over time by state, when the abortion holocaust is removed from Federal controls and returned to the states where dealing with homicide and citizens’ behavior is best addressed. The Democrat Party wants none of that sort of shift! Perhaps that’s why they work so hard to prevent any Federal judge being appointed who might question the constitutionality of the Roe decision. Oh, they’ll tell us they are trying to protect ‘a woman’s reproductive rights’, but since when is the right to hire an educated serial killer to off the already alive unborn a reproductive procedure?
Ping
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.