Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

What about the rights of dads-to-be?
Jewish World Review ^ | 5-4-04 | Issac J. Bailey

Posted on 05/04/2004 7:31:43 AM PDT by SJackson

It was right there in front of me, the grainy, dark screen, the kind only a trained technician could decipher. It held the answer to a question I had for at least four years: Would my first born be a daughter?

"Is it a boy or girl?" I asked, pointing to the ultrasound.

Silence.

"Is it a boy or girl?" I asked again.

"I can't tell you," the technician said. "You are not the patient."

My wife asked, and the technician quickly pointed to the "little boy body part" that meant I'd spend the next 18 years trying to turn that 6 pounds of flesh and blood and soul into a man.

What struck me most, though, was at that moment I wasn't considered a father or a father-to-be or anything, really.

That was my legal status, anyway. I was a poor chap meddling in the privacy of a doctor and patient.

I was married, spent a few years paying down debt, discussing child-rearing philosophies with my wife and envisioning how my kid would save the world.

In an instant, all of that was ignored, none of it mattered.

I was reminded of the story while following the pro-choice rally held in Washington.

I don't want to debate the merits of abortion - though in a world of my making they would only be performed or pursued for life-saving and few other reasons.

What I find disturbing is how men are essentially being divorced from the pre-birth process in the name of rights. But how do you do that and not adversely affect the after-birth father-child relationship?

(Excerpt) Read more at jewishworldreview.com ...


TOPICS: Culture/Society; Editorial
KEYWORDS:

1 posted on 05/04/2004 7:31:43 AM PDT by SJackson
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: SJackson
Good article. I have always maintained that any government that removes the father's ability to have any input in the "choice" to murder the child or be a parent and then expects the father to be 100% responsible for funding the child's life, is an insane government!

run-on sent. rant off-
2 posted on 05/04/2004 7:40:52 AM PDT by CSM (Vote Kerry! Boil the Frog! Speed up the 2nd Revolution! (Be like Spain! At least they're honest))
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: SJackson
Feminists and PC apparatchiks view men as "dhimmi".
3 posted on 05/04/2004 7:44:46 AM PDT by sheik yerbouty
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: CSM
Interesting article; but YOU are not the one carrying the child.

Flip side arguement. You have had 'x' children. You want no more children, but your wife does. You opt for a vasectomy; using the same arguement (married, etc.) would you allow your wife the RIGHT to prevent you from getting a vasectomy, tummy tuck, face lift, liposuction, ect?
4 posted on 05/04/2004 7:54:12 AM PDT by Hodar (With Rights, comes Responsibilities. Don't assume one, without assuming the other.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: SJackson
The same people who proclaim the man has no say in the decision to perform an abortion is the same crowd who would gripe and moan about dads who have no involvement in their children's lives. We can't have it both ways!!!
5 posted on 05/04/2004 8:00:43 AM PDT by ChevyZ28 (Most of us would rather be ruined by praise, than saved by criticism.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Hodar
If the funding is demanded, the payer must also have input in the choice. Oh, yeah, I forgot, we live in a society where it's acceptable to use government guns to steal money from people without accountability to the earners.
6 posted on 05/04/2004 8:00:47 AM PDT by CSM (Vote Kerry! Boil the Frog! Speed up the 2nd Revolution! (Be like Spain! At least they're honest))
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: Hodar
>Interesting article; but YOU are not the one carrying the >child.

Flip side- Then if the female is the ultimate decision maker because she is the one carrying the child, then SHE is the one who is ultimately responsible for getting pregnant in the first place and therefore the male should not have any obligation to support the child hereafter.
7 posted on 05/04/2004 8:03:31 AM PDT by sandbar
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: Hodar
There are two points here:

First, the decision of what treatment, if any, is performed is the sole decision of the patient unless the patient is incapable of making that decision and has in advance given authority to another person to decide for him or her.

Second, the decision as to what information is to be released to others, such as a spouse, is also decided beforehand. For example, my doctor had me fill out a form as to whether my medical information could be released to my wife. Had I not signed the form, she would be in the dark. I signed it because I figured she'd find out anyway... :-)

8 posted on 05/04/2004 8:03:55 AM PDT by NCjim
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: CSM
I'm not arguing with you... just trying to understand your point.

Are you indicating that if YOU are paying the MD, then YOU have a right to the diagnosis on your wife; and a voice in the decision process?

What if your WIFE is the bread-winner? Then does SHE have the RIGHT to decide when/if YOU have a vasectomy?
9 posted on 05/04/2004 8:06:54 AM PDT by Hodar (With Rights, comes Responsibilities. Don't assume one, without assuming the other.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: SJackson
Twisted liberal wishy washy logic.

Under their thought, the man has no rights to a baby until it is born. If the man wants an abortion and the woman wants the child, the father still has to pay child support. Men are here just for sperm donation and a monthly check.

If your divorced wife wants a baby with your frozen sperm, even before her turkey baster conception, the father still have no rights. Hell, it's his body, his sperm, how come he has no choice? Isin't this what this whole argument is about? Choice and your body?

10 posted on 05/04/2004 8:07:33 AM PDT by New Perspective (Proud father of a 4 month old son with Down Syndrome)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: ChevyZ28
Heck, their the same ones who don't even want the woman to have the choice to keep her own baby! They think they know better than she does!
11 posted on 05/04/2004 8:07:51 AM PDT by Ohioan from Florida (The only thing necessary for the triumph of evil is for good men to do nothing.- Edmund Burke)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: Hodar
"Interesting article; but YOU are not the one carrying the child. "

Yeah, but it was the fathers sperm that was a key ingredient in creating that baby. Therefore the "YOU are not the one carrying the child" is pretty weak.
12 posted on 05/04/2004 8:11:09 AM PDT by Proverbs 3-5
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: Ohioan from Florida
their *they're
13 posted on 05/04/2004 8:13:05 AM PDT by Ohioan from Florida (The only thing necessary for the triumph of evil is for good men to do nothing.- Edmund Burke)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 11 | View Replies]

To: sandbar
Then if the female is the ultimate decision maker because she is the one carrying the child, then SHE is the one who is ultimately responsible for getting pregnant in the first place and therefore the male should not have any obligation to support the child hereafter.

In my perfect world, yes you are correct. The male has the choice of having sex; his decision making process ends at the point of orgasm.

1.) The female decides whether she wants to carry the fetus to term (Male opinion has no weight).
2.) Female decides whether to inform the male if he is the father, or keep it secret (Male has no legal recourse)
3.) Female may give child up for adoption, or raise child herself (if male is informed of fatherhood, he may have a legal voice; there is no legal requirement for his acquiecence in the adoption process).
4.) Mother may decide to move away and raise child on her own, without male input.
5.) Female may decide to demand child support from father, and deny visititation rights. She is free to move about the country with the child, at will. The father has no legal recourse.
6.) Female may chose to demand back-child support from the father for up to 18 years after the birth of the child (without regard to father's input into his child).
7.) If FRAUD has been committed (male paying child support is not the biological father), the male may not sue the woman for FRAUD.

This is a very unfair system we currently have. The woman gets to make 100% of the decisions, yet assume no more than a portion of the responsibility for those decisions.

14 posted on 05/04/2004 8:15:22 AM PDT by Hodar (With Rights, comes Responsibilities. Don't assume one, without assuming the other.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: SJackson
"I can't tell you," the technician said. "You are not the patient."

With HIPAA laws and lawyers being what they are nowadays, patient privacy is now being guarded more closely than our nuclear secrets at Los Alamos.

If that tech had said anything, that mother could have her at the other end of a lawsuit claiming damages for invasion of privacy and emotional distress for spoiling the surprise she always dreamed of having at the end of childbirth and the husband would also be suing the tech for loss of companionship with his wife.

15 posted on 05/04/2004 8:15:22 AM PDT by Polybius
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Proverbs 3-5
I left a key ingredient out myself, the word "argument"

you said "Interesting article; but YOU are not the one carrying the child. "

Yeah, but it was the fathers sperm that was a key ingredient in creating that baby. Therefore the "YOU are not the one carrying the child" argument is pretty weak.
16 posted on 05/04/2004 8:16:14 AM PDT by Proverbs 3-5
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 12 | View Replies]

To: Proverbs 3-5
but it was the fathers sperm that was a key ingredient in creating that baby

That is a very big ASSUMPTION, on your part. According to the Dept. of Human Services in Oregon; in cases where DNA testing was requested on parentage, 1 in 7 cases proved that the man who was told he was the father, wasn't.

17 posted on 05/04/2004 8:17:33 AM PDT by Hodar (With Rights, comes Responsibilities. Don't assume one, without assuming the other.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 12 | View Replies]

To: Hodar
you said "That is a very big ASSUMPTION, on your part...where DNA testing was requested...1 in 7 cases proved that the man who was told he was the father, wasn't"

No, it is not a big assumption on my part. Your example is very poor one. In your example obviously there were reasons why the DNA tests are being requested. Your implication was it was 1 in 7 of the general population was hatching bastards when it is really 1 out of 7 who suspected there was a reason to check...
18 posted on 05/04/2004 8:22:36 AM PDT by Proverbs 3-5
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 17 | View Replies]

To: Hodar
No. I am not making any statement regarding funding the MD or health care.

I am saying that the consent of the Father is not necessary if a Mother decides to murder the child. However, if the Mother decides to give birth to the child, the Father is held accountable for the costs.

I advocate all parents taking responsibility for their actions, including the Father being involved monetarily and actively. I also advocate the Father's opinion being part of the decision. The life being murdered is half of his DNA.
19 posted on 05/04/2004 8:24:47 AM PDT by CSM (Vote Kerry! Boil the Frog! Speed up the 2nd Revolution! (Be like Spain! At least they're honest))
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 9 | View Replies]

To: Proverbs 3-5
I guess what I would suggest, is that mandatory DNA testing be done at the time of birth. If a man wants to raise a child; he should KNOW if he is the father so he can make an informed decison. I know men who are raising children they did not father, because of infidelity. In their case, this was an informed decision; and my respect for the man knows no bounds. His (now) ex-wife is not held in the same regard.

But, the basic thrust of the arguement has no bearing on who donated the sperm. This is the woman's body, and the doctor is working on her. Unless she informs the MD that private information is to be shared with her husband; the MD has no choice but to assume that the husband is a total stranger.

Legally, the woman may opt for an abortion; and the husband can not do anything to stop her. Sure, he may divorce her; but he has NO legal means to prevent the abortion. Similarlly, he may elect to have a vasectomy, and the wife has no RIGHT to prevent it.
20 posted on 05/04/2004 8:28:06 AM PDT by Hodar (With Rights, comes Responsibilities. Don't assume one, without assuming the other.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 18 | View Replies]

To: Hodar
Well said. Seems we are on the same side of this one.
21 posted on 05/04/2004 8:29:31 AM PDT by CSM (Vote Kerry! Boil the Frog! Speed up the 2nd Revolution! (Be like Spain! At least they're honest))
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 14 | View Replies]

To: CSM
I also advocate the Father's opinion being part of the decision.

This would be nice; but nearly impossible to actually do. The woman could grab any male, and have him claim to be the father. Then, working in collusion, could affect an abortion without the true father being aware.

As things stand, biologically; the male has very little input into the decision process. The woman may tell the man she's using birth control - and lie. And the man is forced into the father's role willing, or unwilling. This is not an unusual occurance.

22 posted on 05/04/2004 8:32:55 AM PDT by Hodar (With Rights, comes Responsibilities. Don't assume one, without assuming the other.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 19 | View Replies]

To: SJackson
I suspect that this is not an abortion-related matter (fathers famously have no rights when it comes to aborting their children) but a tort lawyer matter.

Hospitals have had strict privacy rules forced on them, and the lawyers are ready to sue at the drop of a hat.

I had a similar thing happen when I recently took a daughter with a burst appendix to the hospital. The doctors wouldn't talk to me about it until my daughter gave them permission to do so.

In some ways, the privacy laws are probably a good thing. But everything gets distorted because of the lawsuit angle.
23 posted on 05/04/2004 8:52:55 AM PDT by Cicero (Marcus Tullius)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Hodar
Sorry but I do not consider having a vasectomy (your argument/example) and having an abortion analogous. You are comparing apples to oranges.

The only comparison would be if you were to compare a woman having her tubes tied to a man getting a vasectomy.

In the case of an abortion we're talking about life created from part of the father. So regardless of who is carrying the baby, the father should have a vested interest.

I understand in today's whacky world that is not the case.
24 posted on 05/04/2004 9:11:57 AM PDT by Proverbs 3-5
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 20 | View Replies]

To: SJackson
The Feminazis have been overtly working diligently at reducing men to redundant for over 40 years and elevating homosexuality to the admired norm. Did nobody notice? The activist judiciary, Teachers Union and most quasi Christian churches right in the middle of the fray. Back in 1948 my father wouldn't join the PTA because of their ideology. Remember the PTA?
25 posted on 05/04/2004 9:12:22 AM PDT by wingnuts'nbolts (Keep your eye on the donut not on the hole!!!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Hodar
Similarlly, he may elect to have a vasectomy, and the wife has no RIGHT to prevent it.

But, she does have the right to leave that provider and go find another willing one, if she so chooses...

26 posted on 05/04/2004 9:34:05 AM PDT by cspackler (There are 10 kinds of people in this world, those who understand binary and those who don't.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 20 | View Replies]

To: Proverbs 3-5
So regardless of who is carrying the baby, the father should have a vested interest.

I understand in today's whacky world that is not the case.

I agree whole-heartedly. Unfortunately, males have very few rights when it comes to reproduction. The only choice we have, is whether to participate in sexual congress. If you are married, you are legally responsible for any children your wife has; with or without, your participation.

27 posted on 05/04/2004 9:53:43 AM PDT by Hodar (With Rights, comes Responsibilities. Don't assume one, without assuming the other.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 24 | View Replies]

To: Polybius
With HIPAA laws and lawyers being what they are nowadays, patient privacy is now being guarded more closely than our nuclear secrets at Los Alamos.

I wish that were the case. In fact, the purpose of HIPAA is to inform the patient of all the conditions under which his medical records will be made public.

28 posted on 05/04/2004 10:07:11 AM PDT by HIDEK6
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 15 | View Replies]

To: HIDEK6
I wish that were the case. In fact, the purpose of HIPAA is to inform the patient of all the conditions under which his medical records will be made public.

That might be at the Government or intitutional level. At the patient contact level, it is taken to extremes.

The next time your Mom's neighbor calls to tell you that the ambulance took your Mom to some hospital for some unknown reason, try calling the local hospitals to find out where your mother is and if she is still alive. You will be lucky if a hospital acknowledges if she is even there.

29 posted on 05/04/2004 10:19:46 AM PDT by Polybius
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 28 | View Replies]

To: Polybius
Just read that form they try to get you to sign when you go to the doctor and you'll see what I mean.
30 posted on 05/04/2004 10:30:39 AM PDT by HIDEK6
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 29 | View Replies]

To: SJackson
What struck me most, though, was at that moment I wasn't considered a father or a father-to-be or anything, really.

Actually, this is not about sexism or anti dad ism.

It's the new law that forbids one to tell anyone but the patient what's going on in another's health care...it's driving doctors (and families) nuts. If my patient doesn't have the proper paper with the proper name and signiture, the office refuses to send information to other doctors. So I have to type letters with this information to make sure it gets to the right place...wasting my time ...

31 posted on 05/04/2004 10:41:02 AM PDT by LadyDoc (liberals only love politically correct poor people)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Hodar
As things stand, biologically; the male has very little input into the decision process. The woman may tell the man she's using birth control - and lie. And the man is forced into the father's role willing, or unwilling.

Nobody is forcing the man to have sex with said woman. My take is if he is willing to engage in intercourse with her, he should be ready to face any consequences of that decision. Whether it affects his physical health, financial health, emotional health etc. For a married couple, there are many more issues in play if she feels the need to "trick" him into fathering a child which won't be covered here. If individuals are not prepared to handle the responsibility of a child, they should not engage in sexual intercourse. The only 100% effective birth control method is abstinence, which coincidently, is the only 100% effective method in preventing the spread of STDs. Makes one wonder if the "design" was intentional.

32 posted on 05/04/2004 10:46:43 AM PDT by 1forall (America - my home, my land, my country.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 22 | View Replies]

To: sheik yerbouty
Nope. As ATMs.
33 posted on 05/04/2004 11:06:26 AM PDT by Ronly Bonly Jones (the more things change ...)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: 1forall
The only 100% effective birth control method is abstinence, which coincidently, is the only 100% effective method in preventing the spread of STDs. Makes one wonder if the "design" was intentional.

Oh, boy ... Game time! How many males between 20 and 30 do you know? Ok, let's discount those that are married, now of these remaining adult males, how many are virgins? Finally, of those adult male virgins; how many are consciously determined to remain so, or are they simply waiting for a woman to say 'yes'? Do you suppose this number is less than 5%? If so, I would then submit that abstinence is not a practical reality.

34 posted on 05/04/2004 11:23:42 AM PDT by Hodar (With Rights, comes Responsibilities. Don't assume one, without assuming the other.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 32 | View Replies]

To: Hodar
You could increase the age span to 13 - 50+. Perhaps the 5% is correct, perhaps not. I don't know and even if a poll were conducted, would the answers be "honest"? Dunno.

Regardless, I'm not arguing whether or not abstinence is a "practical" reality (whatever that means). The fact is, it is reality - (ie no better method to prevent...) we all have a choice and we have to be comfortable with the consequences if we choose to "engage".

I'm not arguing against engaging in sex, just once I make that choice, I can't blame the outcome of my actions on someone else. Rather, I am arguing for taking responsibility for my choices and my actions.

35 posted on 05/04/2004 11:54:22 AM PDT by 1forall (America - my home, my land, my country.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 34 | View Replies]

To: SJackson
I'm really amazed by this.

If the woman wants to have an abortion, the man has no input on the matter.

If the man doesn't want the baby, the woman can choose to keep it and sue him for child support...
36 posted on 05/04/2004 12:21:38 PM PDT by Plumrodimus
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Hodar
I am 31 and still a virgin.
Quite proud of that fact an will admit it up front to anyone who asks me.
No STDs to worry about. My personal choice.
I don't date. Waste of my time and money.
My parents keep bugging me about getting married.
I told them as long as I am living in Oklahoma I am staying single.
I have hated the place since I moved here.
I have been applying to jobs constantly for the past 4 years to transfer to a different State, but no luck yet.

37 posted on 05/04/2004 12:42:42 PM PDT by Chewbacca (I think I will stay single. Getting married is just so 'gay'.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 34 | View Replies]

To: SJackson
"What about the rights of dads-to-be?"

Simply put, your only right (as a man) is the requirement to pay for the child's upbringing if the women should choose to give birth.
38 posted on 05/04/2004 12:48:10 PM PDT by PigRigger (Send donations to http://www.AdoptAPlatoon.org)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: 1forall
"If individuals are not prepared to handle the responsibility of a child, they should not engage in sexual intercourse...."

I have had many people tell me I am out of my mind for repeating the very same thing to them. But than again, I live in NY and Hillary & Chucky are our Senators. I am like a fish out of water.
39 posted on 05/04/2004 12:54:48 PM PDT by PigRigger (Send donations to http://www.AdoptAPlatoon.org)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 32 | View Replies]

To: 1forall; Hodar
Hodar:

I would disagree with you. There is no reason to dismiss abstinence as a practical possibility unless one feels that human beings are animals utterly dominated by their instincts. Current statistics showing that abstinence is actually gaining ground as a respected form of birth control also rebuts your perspective. The point being made is that it doesn't matter how common sex is, that does not absolve those from engaging in it from responsibility for their actions.

THAT SAID -

1forall,

I disagree with -you- in that you seem to find no fault in a woman purposefully, fraudulently telling a man that she was on birth control. I can think of no other circumstance in which fraud and deception over such an important issue are themselves shriven of moral culpability. That's just as bad as someone claiming that they couldn't -help- but have sex so they can't be held responsible. Yes - sex carries with it responsibility, but, using birth control -is- a means of addressing that responsibility (maybe not the best method, but it certainly is -a- method). If a woman really is taking birth control, and it fails, that's one thing. But if a man is -deliberately misled- into believing that birth control is being used, and then he is held fully responsible with no attendant rights in the resulting birth, he should IMO be entirely within his rights to charge the woman with fraud and have at least his legal financial obligations commuted. Otherwise, you are creating an environment that specifically encourages exactly such fraud without repercussion.

Qwinn
40 posted on 05/04/2004 1:03:22 PM PDT by Qwinn
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 32 | View Replies]

To: Qwinn
There is no reason to dismiss abstinence as a practical possibility unless one feels that human beings are animals utterly dominated by their instincts.

Within limits; this is a factual state of the human experience. Do you think that a majority of inmates are gay, when given a choice? But, sodomy in prison is the norm. I'm not saying we have no control over our urges; but among the basic instincts humans have, sex ranks in the top 3. I believe the hierarchy is food, shelter and sex.

And you are correct, abstinence is gaining ground .... among high school students. Even there, the promises made, and the promises kept are pretty low. Besides, what would you expect a 16 year old to say to their parents? But, if you would look at the age group I specified, this is beyond the High School age. I was referring to adults, not adolescents.

Everyone has a 'mad scientist' dream. Mine would be to release a virus into the water that would make the default state of humanity sterile. In my 'mad scientist' world, pregnancy would only be possible if both adults ate a massive dose of :asprin, vitamin C, something readily available and cheap. Thus, every pregnancy would be intentionally planned (both parents would have to consume 6 vitamin C tablets for a few days, or asprin, or something of that sort). There would be no unwanted pregnancies. STD's may spread; but babies wouldn't be thrust upon foolish teenagers, or people who neither want nor can afford another child.

41 posted on 05/04/2004 1:23:36 PM PDT by Hodar (With Rights, comes Responsibilities. Don't assume one, without assuming the other.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 40 | View Replies]

To: Hodar
"Legally, the woman may opt for an abortion; and the husband can not do anything to stop her. Sure, he may divorce her; but he has NO legal means to prevent the abortion. Similarlly, he may elect to have a vasectomy, and the wife has no RIGHT to prevent"

Let me get this strait, you equate abortion with self mutilation? As in the only person that gets hurt is the Mother? You think that because the Child is in her only she should make the call?

Ok, at least I see where your coming from.

Severing the life of a child - a baby made by a Man AND Woman cannot be equated severing the vas diferens. Even the total destruction of the testes doesn't come close to the murder of an unborn child.

If you were talking about a woman getting her tubes tied I might be able to see the correlation, but that isn't the subject. Abortion is all about removing a life from a mothers womb - and thereby the world. It isn't a birth control measure, it's murder.

42 posted on 05/04/2004 1:37:45 PM PDT by Outlaw76 (Citizens on the Bounce!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 20 | View Replies]

To: 1forall
" Nobody is forcing the man to have sex with said woman."

That wasn't his argument and you know it.
By not addressing the actual substance of what was said you are using typical liberal form of debate; a kind of bait and switch.

eg.
Chuck: "Lucy told me she wouldn't pull the ball off the ground before I kicked it, but then she did."
You: "She didn't force you to let her hold the ball."

That mode of debate is quiet stupid and irritating.

43 posted on 05/04/2004 1:46:05 PM PDT by Outlaw76 (Citizens on the Bounce!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 32 | View Replies]

To: SJackson
More results form "the wonman's right to choose."
44 posted on 05/04/2004 2:17:59 PM PDT by happygrl (this war is for all the marbles...we can't go Spanish!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: SJackson
No - that's the wife's cue to throw the transponder on the floor, get up off the table, and say to the technician, "You touch me again, jerk, and I'll sue you. Anyone who won't talk to my husband isn't going to talk to me," and then find a new caregiver. Medical people pull this shinola because people take it.
45 posted on 05/04/2004 2:44:36 PM PDT by valkyrieanne
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: SJackson
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. He doesn't even have any "reproductive rights" in marriage, because his wife retains "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.
46 posted on 05/05/2004 8:05:47 PM PDT by DMZFrank
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

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.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson