What about the rights of dads-to-be?

Jewish World Review ^ | 5-4-04 | Issac J. Bailey

[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?

[Hodar]

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.

[Outlaw76]

"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.

[Outlaw76]

" 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.

[happygrl]

More results form "the wonman's right to choose."

[valkyrieanne]

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.

[DMZFrank]

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.