Vanity - A couple questions about abortion

[Rays_Dad]

I would like to pose a couple questions to the minds of Free Republic. My brother Josh, posed these to me and I have been stuck on them ever since.

Digest and discuss:

In an age of a woman’s unfettered access to abortion, why does the state require a man provide child support when the baby is born? Consider:

1. There is no legal statue that gives a man legal access to the un-born child. Thus the man has no say whether or not the baby is brought to term. 2. Most consider abortion a private matter dealing with a women’s reproductive health, why then does it become “community property.” I use that term because I can not figure out a better one. But consider this, the woman, if I am not mistaken, has the ability to choose the baby’s last name and decide whether or not the father is listed on the birth certificate.

Now there is no denying that hundreds of unborn children are killed every day in the guise of a women’s right to choose. Naturally this is no crime, rather a act praised by many. Now answer the following:

Is there culpability when a person murders a pregnant female considering the on-demand access to abortion?

1. The current statute is a person can and will be tried for the murder of two people. 2. How can the American standard be an unborn fetus is a baby if it is murdered, but it is a pre-life mass if it is aborted.

[JudgemAll]

What I want to know, why isn't this legal empowerment that woman are accused of having ever really offered to young women... those young women in the womb? If it is really about choices for women and if woman do really have more say in the matter, then why are woman babies aborted as often as male babies, as if either gender has any choice in the matter?
------
Because these women cannot be prostituted, love their dad and they do not give up on life. The whole case of fighting for life at birth is contradictory to their genocidal looting and country/life-giving up plank.

Moreover babies cannot be "empowered", employed to destroy justice in favor of power struggle bloodshed and materialist power terrorism.

You have materials, it matters not how you got it, you will be worshiped.

[JudgemAll]

oh, and not to mention that getting government forceps in the womb trains women to be invaded by unwanted jerks and perverted guests and objects. It goes with the culture of violation of the people, of letting in your house "nice gays" and wolves, but of punishing whoever would protect those intrusions.

Pedophile statutory rapists get more protection than babies and their women do with planned parenthood. This is not empowerment for women, as it can only occur with a devoted man, it is prostitution and exploitation through "privacy" empowerment which only benefit dark forces.

[JudgemAll]

and why does it seem that the very same people, especially newsreaders on TV, who get all choked-up and teary-eyed when a severely premature baby manages to survive its ordeal are often the same ones who are likely to be most vociferous in supporting a woman's right to chose to destroy such a small and helpless baby as was the premie in her womb....
---
Because they'd rather see weakness and euthanasia than see fighting for life. They are in tow with the government liberal agenda and the universities "talented tenth" program in this. Try and publish something critical of liberal lawyers or courts in town, and you will get the boot from the local paper. They are like the same organ.

[gondramB]

Just for the record, I think elective abortion is always wrong.

But I disagree with respect to forcing two people to get married or stay married. It is an illusion, I think, that this so clearly benefits the children that it is worth mandating.

1. It is possible for the parents to be good parents to the child without being married to each other.

2. It is possible for the child to be neglected or in the middle of constant fighting even if the parents are married.

3. Staying married to someone you can't stand not only makes for misery but it also costs the opportunity to find someone more suitable.

Case in point - my life: I can understand why my parents got married. Two small town kids -conservative baptists who both went to college in Atlanta and fell in love. But in spite of similar backgrounds they wanted different things, they have utterly different goals and they wound up not loving or even liking each other.

So they divorced. And it was painful. But with the wisdom of being adults rather than college kids they both wound up married to someone new who was perfectly well suited. And I got two wonderful step parents who were good to me but never tried to replace my genetic parent.

So I would oppose forcing anyone to be married.

[DMZFrank]

"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. Legally he is told that he has no option other than the one that the woman "chooses" to give him.

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.

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.