Roe v Wade and the Rights of the Father

I propose a "Father's Abortion." Let a Father petition the Court to terminate his own parental rights to his child after the child's birth.

The emphasis must not be on the right to abortion but on the right to privacy and reproductive control. Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg (speaking of a woman's right).

This January 22 marks the 30th anniversary of Roe v Wade, the Supreme Court decision which overturned all State laws that would stop a woman from having an abortion in the first trimester. While the topic I have chosen here, Roe v Wade and the Rights of the Father may sound interesting, actually there is nothing to write about. There are no such rights. A Father can't stop an abortion if he wants his child, nor can he insist upon an abortion if he doesn't want his child. This situation should trouble everyone, not from a religious point of view, but rather from an Equal Rights point of view.

Equal Rights for all people is difficult for any nation to achieve peaceably, because it requires the group in greater power to yield to the group of lesser power. This is usually accomplished only through war. Our own Civil War is a perfect example of equality being created by force, instead of reason and fairness, as it should have been.

This week as I watched and read opinions about Roe v Wade, I could find nothing, not a word among millions that addressed a Father's relationship to his unborn child.

Two weeks ago I tried an experiment in anticipation of writing this column. I put in a column about gun control that I thought only men should vote on the issue of guns. The logic (rather illogic) used by me was that men buy guns the most, men are called upon to use them the most (when a burglar enters our home), and we get shot the most. Why shouldn't men have the only voice on the issue? I wanted to gauge people's reactions to the thought that in America we would ever give more weight to one person's view than another's because that person can show the issue affects him more.

As I walked about the City (Asbury Park, NJ) these two weeks, I was accosted by people who wanted to take me to task for suggesting that women lose their right to vote on an issue just because the may be affected less by it than men. Some pointed out, quite rightly, that even if there was an issue that didn't affect women at all, as equal members of society, they should still have a voice in all decisions America makes. Quite right indeed. So today I pose the question - Where are all these well-reasoned arguements when it comes to a Father and his unborn child? Why do people who have Equal Protection arguments at the ready on other issues suddenly suffer constitutional amnesia when abortion is mentioned?

During every abortion a Father's child dies, so Fathers are affected. There is much written about the post-abortion depression of women. Nothing is mentioned about the Father. After birth a good Father knows his role is protector of his child. His depression must be crippling when the law allows him no chance to save his child from death by an abortion.

The Supreme Court in Roe v Wade found a privacy right in the 14th Amendment, which doesn't have the word privacy in it. Then they found that the privacy right had a "penumbra" containing other rights (penumbra meand a shadowy area at the edge of a shadow). In that shadow they found the abortion right. That bit on mental gymnastics aside, it wasn't the most terrible part of the decision. This was:

The Court said that a woman may not be mentally ready to handle a child at this stage in her life, or the child might interfere with her career path, and that is so important to her that the State has no right to make a law against it.

So I ask today: Might a Father find himself mentally not ready for a child? Might a Father find a child inconvenient to his career path? If these are rights women get to protect by choosing abortion, why not allow Fathers "the right to choose" also? I propose a "Father's Abortion." Let a Father petition the Court to terminate his own parental rights to his child after the chlid's birth. He would be rid of his obligations to that child in favor of his mental health and finances, the same as a woman does when she aborts.

I propose this not because it would be in any way good. I propose it because constitutional Equal Protection demands it, and to show the danger created when judges destroy democracy by making up laws that don't exist. "Father's Abortion." It's high time for a test case.

Don't most women take that pill the day or week after they have been raped or had relations unprotected?>>

Yes, and that is how it kills babies. Most women, when raped, call the police and go to a hospital where DNA samples are taken, then a D & C is conducted. Oh, and it'
s not as easy as taking " a Pill" read the last few paragraphs.

What is it?

RU-486 (also known as mifepristone) is a chemical used to cause abortion. It was first developed in France in 1981, and has recently been brought to America. Although it is referred to as "the abortion pill," it is actually three pills taken at once.

RU-486 is a man-made steroid designed to work against a woman's normal, natural state during pregnancy. Sometimes it is called a "medical abortion" or "chemical abortion" because it does not involve surgery, unless the chemicals fail to kill the baby.

Abortion is an act of direct killing that takes the life of a tiny human being-a life that begins at fertilization.

How does it work?

During pregnancy, the preborn baby requires a chemical called progesterone. This chemical is produced naturally in the mother's body. It is so valuable to the baby's proper growth and development that some call it "nature's pregnancy hormone."

RU-486 works against this hormone. It breaks down and then destroys the surroundings the baby has established in his mother's womb, and eventually destroys the baby as well. The chemical cuts off nourishment to the preborn child, who starves to death inside his mother's womb.

But RU-486 does not work alone. A second chemical is also involved.

How does this second chemical work?

The second chemical (misoprostol), causes cramping and contractions. After RU-486 has killed the tiny boy or girl through starvation, this second chemical is designed to push the dead baby out of the mother's womb.

How is an RU-486 abortion done?

During her first visit to the doctor's office or clinic, the woman is given RU-486 pills. This will kill her baby in the womb.

During her second visit, the woman is given pills or suppositories containing the second chemical (misoprostol). This will cause cramping, and the woman will eventually expel the dead baby. This could happen at any time after this drug is taken.

During her final doctor's office or clinic visit, a doctor will examine the woman to see if her abortion is complete. If the RU-486 abortion has failed, the woman will then be scheduled for surgical abortion.

Is an RU-486 abortion safe?

No. Women have died because of RU-486 abortions. Here are some of the side effects:

nausea
abdominal pain
vomiting
heavy and extended bleeding
heart attack
hemorrhage
impaired future fertility
harmful to any future children
What should I do?

If you are pregnant, don't abort your baby. Don't be pressured into getting an abortion.

There are people willing to help you, listen to your concerns, arrange good prenatal care for you and be supportive as you decide what is best for you and your baby.

Be good to yourself-be good to your baby!

Sources:

"A Consumer's Guide to the Pill and Other Drugs," by pharmacist/researcher John Wilks.

"Infant Homicides Through Contraceptives," by pharmacist Bogomir Kuhar; 2nd edition 1995.

Medical consultant: Stephen Spaulding, M.D. Dr. Spaulding is a board-certified family practitioner whose writings have appeared in a variety of medical journals.

"The chemical that will kill millions more babies and maim untold thousands of women received approval from the abortion industry's number one ally: the Food and Drug Administration,". "Contrary to what presidential candidate Al Gore has claimed regarding the 'safety' of this chemical, the fact is, it will not be safe for one child. RU-486 kills innocent human persons. RU-486 is a chemical assault weapon aimed at the tiniest babies. RU-486 is an affront to the inalienable rights of the human child who is endowed with personhood at conception/fertilization.

"The US Congress must resolve to conduct oversight hearings at once so that the FDA is held accountable for this raw, inhumane decision that will destroy babies and maim women. We will not cease our efforts until personhood is restored to all Americans, and until women are protected from sadistic Big Abortion."
___________________________________________________________________

So, now French women can use this pill privately to abort?

No! Following is the schedule that must be followed today in France if a woman wishes to abort using RU-486:

She must have a pregnancy test and have the preborn child dated.

She must undergo a pelvic exam, a blood test, and an ultrasound exam using an intravaginal probe.

After a one-week waiting period, she takes three RU-486 tablets registered under her name and leaves the clinic.

36 to 48 hours later she receives an injection of a synthetic prostaglandin and stays in the clinic for about four hours for monitoring.

She returns to the clinic seven days later to ensure that the abortion is complete and to have her bleeding monitored.

If the pill has failed, she must have a surgical abortion.[4]
According to some medical reports, the pill fails approximately five percent of the time.[5] Others put the failure rate at ten percent or more.[6]

Is RU-486 safe?

RU-486 has also been combined with other chemicals, like sulprostone, in order to make the death of the preborn child more certain. However, it has been reported that when sulprostone is used, the incidence of babies born with malformations (babies who survive the abortion attempt) and the incidence of women dying does increase.[7]

An account of an RU-486 abortion done on one American girl, 17 years of age, who traveled to England suggests that there are many "unpleasant side effects, including nausea, vomiting and diarrhea." The young woman, Aimee, told the reporter, "I felt like I was dying...it hurt so much. I had contractions coming so fast, and I was sick to my stomach and dry heaving. I couldn't stop trembling and I felt so hot."[8]

Bernard N. Nathanson, M.D., has commented, regarding the administration of RU-486 plus a prostaglandin backup: "These new drugs are a frightening throwback to barbarism and an ominous harbinger of the deterioration of the health of women and children worldwide. They represent perhaps the greatest threat yet to life, liberty and the family in this generation."[9]

In a letter dated April 12, 1990, a group of French health professionals warned of the hazards that RU-486, in combination with the use of other chemicals, posed to women who use it.

Dr. Raymond Godefroid, R.Ph., wrote, "Menstrual periods that last an average of 12 days, hemorrhage severe enough to require blood transfusion, and pain in 10% of the patients severe enough to require administration of parenteral narcotics should not be given the 'safe' label...The fact that premeditated pregnancy termination [abortion] is an unnatural and traumatic event, no matter what the modus operandi, makes this antiprogesterone steroid just another abortifacient..."[10]

Five cases of congenital malformation were reported in the December 21-28, 1991, edition of The Lancet, a British medical journal.

The April 30, 1991, Washington Post (p. 5) reported that the French government banned the use of RU-486 by smokers and women over the age of 35 due to serious complications and the death of one woman.

According to a letter by Karen Masulis, R.N., in the May 27, 1991, edition of Nurseweek, most women who use RU-486 "bleed heavily and continue to bleed heavily for 10 days"; "one in 1,000 women bleeds so heavily she requires a transfusion"; "nausea, vomiting, abdominal pain and diarrhea are common side effects" as well.[11]

In a June 19, 1991, letter, Dr. Carl Peck of the United States Department of Health and Human Services wrote: "[The] FDA continues to believe that the RU-486 regimen poses an unreasonable safety risk which makes it inappropriate for release under our personal importation policy."
Commenting on a French clinical study done on the "safety" of RU-486 that was reported in the March 8, 1990, New England Journal of Medicine, Herbert Ratner, M.D., stated:

"[The] six authors who conclude that RU-486 with prostaglandin is 'an effective and safe method for the early termination of pregnancy' are all employees of the company that will earn huge profits if RU-486 gets wide acceptance. Controlling bias favoring their company's product is nearly unsurmountable...

"The women were monitored as inpatients for 4 days and then left the center. However 'seventy-five women [out of 2115] did not return for follow-up after they had received prostaglandin analogues' and were dropped out of the study. There is no indication that an attempt was made to track down the delinquents. As epidemiologists know 'it is the patients who drop out of the trials who are much more important than the patients who stay in them.' One wonders, then, whether any had died, or whether some had ended up elsewhere with complications which require a general care facility."[12]

Most shocking is the fact that after only 17 months of animal research conducted in France, the testing of RU-486 was deemed sufficient for it to be tested on women, who became the human guinea pigs for further testing.[13]

Yes, life begins at Conception. By your two questions in the prior posts, I think you believe the contrary? For me, it's against my religion to think any other way. The Scientific embryonic articles explain why it's a life at Conception.

Are unborn children human beings? Are they persons? No doubt about it. The following essays argue the pro-life case...

http://www.vanderbilt.edu/SFL/dnirving_--_human_beginning.htm

When Do Human Beings Begin? -- by Dianne N. Irving, Ph.D. In this essay, former NIH bench research biochemist Dianne Irving demonstrates the scientific fact that the lives of human beings--and human persons--begin at conception.
Personhood Begins At Conception

http://www.vanderbilt.edu/SFL/peter_kreeft_--_personhood_begins_at_conception.htm

-- by Peter Kreeft, Ph.D. Professor Kreeft explains what exactly a "person" is and why the various philosophical positions which deny that the unborn child is a person are themselves inadequate.

http://www.vanderbilt.edu/SFL/francis_beckwith_--.htm

Is the Unborn Less Than Human? -- by Francis J. Beckwith, Ph.D. In this essay, Dr. Beckwith lays out the scientific facts surrounding human development and explains why it does not make sense to argue that a human being is created at implantation, quickening, or birth.

http://www.vanderbilt.edu/SFL/francis_beckwith2_--_is_the_unborn_less_than_human.htm

When Does a Human Become a Person? -- by Francis J. Beckwith, Ph.D. Continuing the previous essay, Dr. Beckwith demonstrates why other functional criteria given for personhood--such as sentience, brain development, and viability--are inadequate. He then refutes the "gradualist" position, which incorrectly asserts that the unborn becomes more and more human as the pregnancy progresses. Finally, he discusses the positions of various abortion and infanticide advocates like James Rachels, Mary Wollenkott, and Michael Tooley.

http://www.vanderbilt.edu/SFL/francis_beckwith_004.htm

Does Life Begin At Implantation? -- by Francis J. Beckwith, Ph.D. In this essay, Dr. Beckwith addresses the phenomena of monozygotic twinning, hydatiform moles, choriocarcinoma, blighted ova, cloning, and fertilization wastage. He then shows how these phenomena fail to disprove the position that human life begins at conception.

http://www.vanderbilt.edu/SFL/dnirvinglarger.htm

Scientific and Philosophical Expertise: An Evaluation of the Arguments on Personhood -- by Dianne N. Irving, Ph.D. In this essay, biochemist Dianne Irving argues that positions which assert that early human embryos are not persons are based on inadequate philosophical principles and faulty scientific data.

http://www.vanderbilt.edu/SFL/ThomistFertilization.htm

The Human Rational Soul in the Early Embryo -- by Stephen Heaney, Ph.D. In this essay, Professor Heaney discusses the various theories of "ensoulment" that permeate philosophical (and theological) discussions on abortion.

http://www.vanderbilt.edu/SFL/scott_sullivan.htm

A Survey of Arguments for Immediate versus Delayed Animation -- by Scott Sullivan. In this essay, Thomist Philosopher Scott Sullivan critically analyzes the theory of mediate animation.

http://www.vanderbilt.edu/SFL/lejeune_testimony.htm
The Tiniest Humans -- an interview with the renowned geneticist Jerome Lejeune and the father of modern embryology, Sir Albert William Liley

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.