Posted on 04/12/2007 9:22:51 AM PDT by metalmanx2j
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.
Here is another great example of the down the rabbit hole insanity that abortion “law” is. A few years ago in Chicago, a married manager of a fast food resturant was charged with the murder of his girlfriend and her unborn child. It seems that he knocked her up, and she came to extort him for hush money, part of which was to go for an abortion. He killed her because he didn’t want to pay the dough for it.
While the murder charges for the girlfriend are easy to understand, I was struck as to how there was almost no discussion of the fact that he got charged for achieving precisely the same objective for the child that the “mother” was seeking and that she would have been entirely free of legal consequence for by having the deed performed by a medical hitman.
Aside from the grave moral implications, abortion law is also the greatest insult to logic and linear reasoning that was ever perpetrated by man or Supreme Court justice!!!
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.
About 2.5 years ago, I read a column, by Steal Neal, of the Chicago Sun-Times, in which he said that women have a Constitutional right to abortion. I sent a letter to the editor, and I said that Americans have constitutional freedom of speech and freedom of the press because those freedoms are mentioned in the Constitution. I said that, if people think that women have a constitutional right to abortion, they must think that abortion is mentioned in the Constitution. I asked Neal to write a column and tell which article of the Constitution mentions abortion. The Sun-Times didn’t print my letter. They usually don’t because I argue against their liberal editorials.
If the girlfriend is motivated by selfishness, which appears to be the case, he could offer to pay her NOT to abort the baby. He could tell her that if she will give birth and sign custody over to him he will pay her, if this is legal. I don’t see why this would be baby-selling because he is the father and would have rights to a newborn baby if not to a fetus. Anyhow, he should check with a lawyer to see if this is possible. But make sure that he pays her after the baby is born and he has custody because she could take the money and turn around and abort anyway.
I recently heard of one case in California (unfortunately, I don’t have the link), where a father successfully went to court on behalf of his unborn baby, and won his right to be a father. Mother was ordered by the court to not abort, and to hand the baby over to its father after birth.
Don’t give up on looking for help on this. There is help for the fathers who are desparate to have rights. They should be able to have them.
You may wish to go look at a father’s rights forum. Google it, you will easily find it.
Good luck, and I wish your friend all of the best.
Men can’t experience being pregnant, and women can’t experience having a pregnant spouse.
If anything, the worries and fears associated with pregnancy were greater for me than for my wife. I didn’t know what was going on, I didn’t know how she was doing, and I couldn’t do anything to help.
Reality usually is that challenges in life are felt hardest by those providing support, not those going through it. Is it harder to have a kid who is sick, or is it harder to be the sick child?
I don’t think any of youse realise,
but the woman has to AGREE to marry,
just like she has to AGREE to not get an abortion.
Sorry mate, I think he’s screwed unless he can get her not to abort the child.
<33
He did rock, walk, burp, change, and otherwise father these children in every possible way.
But he was NEVER pregnant.
This great tragedy is not just about women, but about an entire broken society that chooses death and despair over life and hope."
This is what people should remember from this thread, but instead I'm sure they will remember that another selfish "bitch" chose abortion.
THIS IS WHY sex education and self control is MORE IMPORTANT FOR THE GUY.
The man has no rights.
A man who is not careful will have to suffer either like your friend, knowing his child was murdered in the womb and he had no right to stop it, or he may have to pay through the nose to support the child from afar. He may not be allowed access to the child, and may be forced into being a “bad parent” by default.
Men have got to think about these things BEFORE they have sex. No orgasm is worth it.
I cry for my gender who doesn’t understand sometimes the depths of a man’s love. I have three sons. To me, boys love harder and deeper than anyone else. I am so sorry you had the occasion to write that, but it’s beautiful.
Welcome to FR (you joined today). I am proud of you for your change of heart. I am sad for what you went through because back in the day when I was young many young women were in your situation: it was supposed to be “normal” to just “sweep it under the rug.” NO ONE talked about it being killing a baby back in the 70s, 80s, etc.
I am in the situation of seeing some couples deciding they would rather have their extra embryos KILLED or given to science experiments rather than have them go to another loving couple. Maybe it’s the same thing you meant with the guilt. They just want the little “problem” to go away and never consider the actual child(ren).
Men really, really need to NOT have sex with anyone unless they are ready to marry them or at least be co-parents with them FOREVER, even if the child ends up across the country or world from them.
And men, don’t trust women’s methods of birth control no matter what. Use your own, no matter what she says she is on! Hormonal stuff is notoriously unreliable, and so are some women at taking them regularly.
Imagine how the baby feels when neither the mother nor the father wish to keep it alive. At least the father is trying.
Sorry for the father’s grief, but did he not know the character of the woman he impregnated?
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.