Ugly Aftermath of Roe: Men Now Presume Post-Coital Right to a Dead Baby

NY Newsday ^ | 3-6-2003 | Sheryl McCarthy

[Notwithstanding]

From Los Angeles (NY NewsDay):

“His own private investigator testified that before Bakley's murder Blake discussed with him his plans to kidnap the pregnant woman, force her to have an abortion and, if necessary, kill her.”

[jwalsh07]

Well in the name of equality men should have equal power especially when it comes to "Choice". Equal protection, under the law. Is that not what the 14th amendment is about?

Yeah, especially for the unborn.

[Tax-chick]

the man would not feel compelled to kill the child or its mother.

This is quite a statement, but consistent with your theme that men have "no choice."

Men have the choice to abstain from s8x with women they aren't married to. They have to choice to use "protection." Conception is the result of both men's and women's "choices."

A father should be able to prevent an abortion, if he wants to raise his child. Unfortunately, that's not permitted by law. Maybe a few lives could be saved if men counseled their "partners" to choose adoption for their babies. Then there's no financial burden to either ... biological material donor ... can't call these folks parents!

[Right Wing Professor]

Hey, why shouldn't men have an equal right to murder their unborn children?

[WaterDragon]

The only solution to this issue is the only adult way of handling it anyway........take the time to get to know someone before jumping into bed with him/her, or marrying him/her. The adult way is patience and honesty.

I admit that this is difficult, and the lessons come hard. But it's what we ought to be teaching our children.

[livius]

There is a dangerous assumption that parents will seek to prevent an abortion once they find out about an underage/illegitimate pregnancy.

You're right. I worked in a crisis pregnancy center where a 15 year old came to us because she did not want to have her THIRD abortion. Her mother was a doctor, btw, and had arranged for the girl's first two abortions virtually on the spot - the first one was when the girl was 13.

We told her she was pregnant and she burst into tears and said she didn't want to have another abortion. We gave her as much information and sources of assistance as possible, but I doubt that once she stepped out our door, she had much choice in the matter. I'm sure Mother hauled her off to an abortionist buddy as soon as she got home that day.

[Right Wing Professor]

After birth, neither men nor women can unilaterally end obligations to the born and living child, (although a unique and stronger biological-based tie persists between mother and child.)

This is incorrect. Women can in many states unilaterally put their children up for adoption. Nebraska, for example, gives a father five days to assert his paternity rights. In a recent case, a pregnant teenager moved away from her boyfriend, had the baby, and put it up for adoption. By the time the father found out, his rights had expired. The judge said he should have kept tabs on the mother, notwithstanding the fact that if he had, the woman could have charged him with stalking.

As far as family law is concerned, men are walking wallets, and little more.

[MHGinTN]

Women have more control over what happens during pregnancy, because they own the body affected. You conveniently ignored the body of the unborn baby. I'm not surprised! They aren't human beings to your ilk. You assume that because the baby is there, inside the woman's body (by no fault of the unborn child, as even you would have to admit, in 99.9% of the pregnancies), that she owns the body of that other individual human being. THAT is the demonic lie your ilk tries to foist upon the public in order to support your rite of bloody slaughter. The truth is, even the placental membranes and protective bubble are built by the new individual human being living a lifetime begun at its conception. May God have mercy upon your twisted soul for so purposely ignoring these alive individual human beings in order to defend the indefensible.

[Khepera]

Yes and you will notice that all the choices you gave me are already enjoyed by women. They should exercize those choices too. Once the deed is done however then we should all have the choice to terminate. Men cannot choose to terminate the baby like the women but we should be able to terminate support. it is only fair.

[Khepera]

Everyone should get to choose dont you think? we know the choice of the unborn now we need some choices for the already born too.

[Tax-chick]

we should all have the choice to terminate

It would be equally fair if no one had the choice to "terminate"! Let's be honest and call it "kill." Unfortunately, that's not the current legal situation.

If you want to make the law fair, shouldn't you be aiming for fewer legal killings, rather than more?

[SarahW]

Please don't start....I'm not ignoring the baby.

I'm simply explaining that it's the physical burdens, not the economic ones, which underpin "advantages" the law gives women. The legal reason men can't control the pregnancy is because the woman is pregnant and not the man.

[SarahW]

No, it wouldn't be "eqaully fair", because men would bear none of the physical risks.

[Khepera]

I would make a law to outlaw abortion and prosicute those who do it for murder.

[Tax-chick]

men would bear none of the physical risks

I've had six babies. A number of my friends have more. The "physical risks" of pregnancy (1) do not justify killing the baby and (2) are less significant than the risks of abortion. All this "terrible burden of pregnancy" stuff is a total exaggeration.

Adults need to be responsible for their actions. You can't just say, "He should have been responsible, not me!" or "It's not my fault, she could have said no!" Not when you then use that as the justification for killing an innocent human being conceived through your irresponsibility.

I'm using "your" in a generic sense here, not suggesting that either of you actually would do this :-).

[Khepera]

the fair is in august.

[goldstategop]

If I don't want her preggers, then I stiff her if she doesn't be careful. Hey the NOW NAGs asked for it, they got it. This is the ugly side of the "pro-choice" argument they don't want people to see.

[meyer]

Hey, why shouldn't men have an equal right to murder their unborn children?

Well, the rights should be equal - but for all three parties, those rights being the right to life, liberty, and the persuit of happiness.

[meyer]

I've had six babies. A number of my friends have more. The "physical risks" of pregnancy (1) do not justify killing the baby and (2) are less significant than the risks of abortion. All this "terrible burden of pregnancy" stuff is a total exaggeration.

Well, there are the very rare cases where death of the mother is a high possibility - that might be about the only time I'd support abortion. Self-defense.

[goldstategop]

Yup. The pro aborts may have started out thinking you could only get rid of unborn babies but they ended up placing women's lives at risk. Quite an argument for women's equality not that they'd ever admit its completely absurd.

[Tax-chick]

the very rare cases where death of the mother is a high possibility

Even in those cases, abortion might do more harm than good. If a woman is already very sick or injured, a stressful surgical procedure with a high risk of infection isn't exactly smart medicine.

However, I was referring in my post to the general state of pregnancy, of which I have considerable experience, not the exceptional cases.