Posted on 11/26/2006 12:33:28 PM PST by Lorianne
State Duma deputies will consider a bill barring a wife from having an abortion without her husband's consent.
"Above all, the bill is based on the concept of parental equality," its author, Alexander Krutov of the nationalist Rodina party, said Thursday.
"The decision to give birth to or murder a baby is an enormous one and it should be made by the parents together," he said by telephone.
The bill would require a wife to obtain her husband's written consent in the presence of a doctor before having an abortion. A doctor who allows an abortion without the written consent could face murder charges, Krutov said.
The bill will have to clear the State Duma's Public Health Committee before being sent to the floor of the Duma for discussion, a process that could take three weeks, Krutov said.
Women had more than 1.6 million abortions in 2005, roughly equal to the number of births, Health and Social Development Minister Mikhail Zurabov told the Duma in February.
The abortion rate, while still comparatively high, has declined over the past decade. In 1993, it peaked at 235 per 100 live births. Around 46 million women worldwide have abortions each year, with the highest rates in Romania, Cuba and Vietnam and the lowest rates in Belgium, the Netherlands and Germany.
Oh, wait. That's AMERICA's system.
It's a very good law. I've always been disgusted by the legality of women aborting their husbands babies without approval. I know a woman who did that.
Once, in the 50s, I believe, USSR outlawed abortions. Well, nothing good came out of it. The prohibition lasted for few years, and then was dropped.
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.
Sweet Lord, "the decision to... murder a baby... should be made by the parents together". Sweet Lord, I'm speechless... once again, the inhumanity of humanity amazes me.
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.
Abortions were outlawed during Stalin's times.
Towards the end of his times, not before WWII. I used to remember more details, but as I age, my memory is not what it once was.
This should have been law in the US years ago. For those who say it takes 2 go get pregnant, a father should have every legal right as the mother. Since it isn't law here, the faher should not have to pay child support, etc. (if he chooses) if the woman keeps the baby.
Who are they kidding?. Certainly not me.
And what on Earth makes the Russian government think that Russian males want kids? With an average lifespan of 58 years, they have shown virtually no interest in even living, let alone raising children.
Exactly. I've never understand the paradox of "it's my decision!" and "he better pay child support!" If it is truly the woman's decision and her's alone, perhaps she should pay all the bills herself. Oh wait, that's bringing common sense into the feminist equation...I know better than that..
And can you imagine the fees involved if you start having paternity tests prior to abortions? I mean, if a woman really wants it, she can claim that she was screwing around like a trollop or something. These days, that's a badge of honor.
TS
What a novel idea. This country ought to experiment with it sometime.
Talk about spin! "Comparatively high... 1.4 million abortions per year." They phrase it as if this is all good news!
Around 100 kills per 100 live births. 1 for 1.
A Russian baby has only a 50% chance of living to birth and a 50% chance of being killed, dismembered and sucked into a bucket.
How is this deliberate killing of the unborn at 46+ million/year not a holocaust?
"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.
I hope you're being sarcastic that this is a "stupid end-game" but I can't tell.
US law, thought perhaps not Russian law, is biased to presume a husband is responsible for and the father of any children his lawful wife bears. Even after paternity has proven he isn't the father there have been US cases where a court has decided the husband is required to continue supporting the child he did not father!
Giving a husband an equal say over the ultimate fate of his sire is certainly just if we must continue this perpetual holocaust of abortion at the hand of so-called feminist's "rights to reproductive choice." No woman should be able to force any man to procreate, he should not be on a financial hook. If she wants to bear the child she should be willing to fully accept that burden should she want to rear the child herself.
You have to give the Russians credit for not hiding the truth behind false science or sugar-coating it with euphemisms. No phony moral equivalence arguments. If you want to murder your baby you need your husband's permission to murder your baby or your doctor will be charged with murdering your baby.
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.