Posted on 12/02/2002 4:06:12 PM PST by Z in Oregon
Is it ever right to cruelly kill innocent human life? No, of course not. Quite the opposite: It is always very wrong to cruelly kill innocent human life.
From the book, "Who Broke The Baby?", by Jeanne Garton: "At a time when society is calling for greater responsibility on the part of fathers... it seems ironic that the law denies them the appropriate legal rights necessary to protect their children when their children are the most dependent and the most vulnerable."
Pro-life men fight valiantly for the right to protect the fragile, vulnerable lives of tiny, innocent prenatal babies across America... and locally.
"Locally" refers to the right to legally protect the very lives of their own prenatal daughters and sons.
Under the out-of-thin-air travesty that is Roe vs. Wade, along with the later Danforth, Webster, and Casey cases, every father of every baby is prevented from stopping the brutally violent abortion death of his own child.
Society could not possibly institute anything more criminally detrimental than that. For its own health and future, society must be focused on legally fostering, sanctifying, and protecting fatherhood--- and not on putting a coldly destructive wall of abortion death between millions of perfectly innocent little prenatal babies and their devoted, caring, noble fathers. In the name of reason, spend a moment with the other side of the issue: If a man co-conceives, and so becomes a biological father, but then deserts the child, society is quick to condemn him.
O.K, but why?
Should a man feel a sense of responsibility towards a child of which he is the biological father? Should society hold him responsible for raising and supporting that child? Should he feel emotionally invested in and love his prenatal child? Should the life of his child matter more to him than his own?
Yes, of course, to all four questions. But why?
The meaning of life is in the answer to that question. Legally, men are held responsible for raising and supporting their children by virtue of genetic proof that the child is biologically theirs: that they are the father, as evidenced by their 23-chromosome genetic signature being present in every single cell of their child from the moment of their child's conception forward.
In effect, society has said to fathers that this genetic signature holds them to certain responsibilities.
Without doubt, that is best for children and for our society. And while a small-but-growing minority of fathers just want out of the picture, most fathers acknowledge the responsibility that they agreed to with their genetic signature, made a part of every cell of their prenatal baby daughter or son at the moment of their conception.
However, every signed contract, and indeed every civilized society, necessarily attaches rights to responsibilities. For responsibilities without concordant rights equals slavery. Our nation was founded on this premise; in the 1770's, it was referenced by the phrase, "No taxation without representation."
It is a timeless premise, timeless as all truth is. With responsibilities must come rights, and there is no right more foundational than the right to protect in law the life of one's own child.
For no one can claim rights to something that can be legally destroyed over their objections. That fact, along with the value of erring on the side of protecting innocent human life, is the central point of human civilization. And so, a principle must be established.
Will society continue its current anti-baby path, and align with the morality-free "Choice For Men" movement, which contends that all men must be legally entitled to desert the babies they father, and leave their ex-wife or ex-girlfriend to pay all of the bills for 18-21 years alone and single-handedly with zero help?
Or, will a pro-life society go the exact opposite way and endorse in law the natural right of every father whose baby was conceived in the course of consensual relations to stop the grotesquely violent killing/aborting of his own innocent baby from conception forward?
For America to prosper and be the best, most successful, pro-family, life-affirming society that it can be, the second path is the only right one. Fatherhood is biological, and completely contrary to all the deeply toxic feminist male-bashing propaganda, the vast majority of fathers are good men who have natural paternal instincts and the right to love their prenatal daughters and sons from the moment of conception forward. With that paternal instinct and love comes the immutable right to protect. The greatest day in the history of the United States of America will come when that right is protected in law, as it one day must be in a decent, moral, pro-fatherhood, pro-baby society. Check out the "pictures" link at www.abortiontv.com on the Internet to see what heartless horror millions of caring fathers deserve the legal right to protect their prenatal babies from.
As this nation moves through the 21st century, we must keep in mind that protecting perfectly innocent human life, as millions of good fathers are seeking the legal right to do, is progressive.
Destroying innocent human life, as the empathy-free advocates of abortion death so relish doing, is regressive. Especially when that innocent life is a wonderful human baby who has hurt no one and only wants to be loved, protected, valued, and taken care of.
In the end, it goes like this: babies are good. They have a right to life. Fathers have a natural need to protect their babies. This paternal instinct is the necessary center of humanity, the nuclear family, and for that matter, civilization itself.
And the very human life of every innocent, vulnerable, defenseless little pre-natal baby begins with the moment of conception.
"Each of us has a unique beginning, the moment of conception. The human nature of the human being from conception to old age is not a metaphysical contention. It is plain experimental evidence. Life has a very, very long history, but each individual has a very neat beginning: the moment of conception." -- Dr. Jerome Lejeune (Nobel Prize winner in genetics) We all began our unique and valuable lives in exactly the same way, with innumerable aspects of ourselves determined by the formation of our signature DNA, at conception. Half of our heredity was determined by each parent. Some of you may look more like your father; some of you may look more like your mother. Either way, it was determined at conception. Your conception.
This holds true for all of us. You, me, and every human being in the world, without exception.
Folks, I've written about the pro-life issue for years. For the first time, it looks like the long-awaited sea change is happening. It will take vigilance and sweat equity to keep it going, but it has begun. Nationally, America will begin 2003 with a Republican-controlled Senate, a Republican-controlled House of Representatives, and a Republican President. Nothing can stop that now, and united, they will rule the country for at least two years. Those two years provide a lot of time to appoint and confirm ardently pro-life Supreme Court Justices.
Our new United States Senate Judiciary Committee Chairman is named Orrin Hatch. The make-up of the courts is about to be changed for a generation. The dawn of the return to a life-affirming Constitutional Republic has finally arrived. So it was always meant to be.
This is unquestionably a profoundly progressive turn of events. For every nation must be judged on the basis of how well it protects its most innocent, gentle members, from little prenatal babies forward. The strength of every human is based upon how well they protect and foster innocence itself. Power is in the giving...
And further, a consistent pro-life ethic is the strongest, most rock-steady, empathically fundamental foundation a progressive, creative society could have. It's time to rebuild that foundation from the ground up.
I object to this. Family Law (tm) in these United States is definitely not father-friendly. There is no accountability on the part of ex-wives or ex-girlfriends for the money the State garnishes the father for.
IOW, the woman gets the $$ whether or not she needs it and whether or not the forced "contribution" of it impoverishes the father and leaves him in a perpetual state of indebtedness. 'Pod
So how do you propose to tear down the structure that has aculturated our best and brightest women to believe the choice to unilaterally deny maternal responsibilities is their unquestionable right?
I don't know how many of the 1.5 million or so abortions now happening in the USA annually would still take place if it were their FATHERS, not their MOTHERS, who had the legal right to either force the abortion, or force it to be carried to term.
But I will bet you 80% of the abortions would be eliminated. Men are so tender hearted around babies, real mushy when it comes to that...
First, if men could carry the babies, do you think they would do so to eliminate those abortions?
Second, as I understand it, men are more in favor of abortion than women because they see it as a way out of unwanted children. More on that here.
I certainly hope so. With pro-lifers that think we can go backward, instead of making a "new" positive counterclaim to contend with the "heads I win, tails you lose" doctrines of the pro-abortion contingent, it's the only hope I can see on the horizon.
Of course, the fall of Roe v. Wade could change the entire landscape. One can only hope. Without the elimination of Roe, the only thing we have to fight fire with is fire.
Except that we would be hurting our own children the most. I agree that Roe v. Wade should be overturned, but I don't think men should be able allowed to abandon their children just because women are allowed to kill theirs.
If anyone wants on or off my ProLife Ping List, please notify me by freepmail.
Of course you don't, neither do I, but the fact of the matter is women are allowed to kill theirs. Before you quote me "two wrongs don't make a right," answer this question; what will motivate an amoral despot to relinquish authority?
The question you have to answer is "will more babies be saved by women saying 'no' because they are again at risk of being left helpless, or will more be saved by maintaining the status quo?
My experience leads me to believe, in general, women prize "security" more than anything else.
My nswer is no, because more babies would probably be aborted if the women couldn't count on support from their children's father(s). That's a repugnant question anyway, because men support abortion in more numbers than women because they see it as a way out of supporting unwanted children.
If you relly want to put a stop to abortion, why not join me in calling on men to abstain from pre-marital sex, or at least casual sex? That would not only dramatically reduce the number of abortions, it would also reduce the number of men having to support children don't want, and it is an action men can take right now to help solve the problem.
But this isn't about stopping abortion. This is about men being able to get casual sex without accepting responsibility for the consequences. I absolutely refuse to support that "cause", and if that means that men get stuck supporting babies they fathered but don't want, so be it.
About your "two wrongs don't make a right" comment, do you believe in God? If so, do you believe God will find men guiltless for abandonning their children just because women are allowed to kill their children?
If fathers are willing to commit to life support for an unborn child, they ought to be given the right to take that child to raise without the woman and she ought to be held by the courts to providing life support for ther few months until viability for the father to take over. The compelling interest of a state ought to kick in, at least, by the fourth month of gestational age and abortion ought to be criminalized from that point onward.
If the father is not willing to take the life support responsibility, the state ought to provide for the woman during her period of life support to birth, then provide for the child until age of accountability. The entire range of issues is all about life support and there are already legal precedents to work off of for a more humane paradigm regarding the right to life for the unborn.
Will ALL abortion ever be eliminated? Not until the Lord returns, but a drastic reduction in the holocaust can be achieved if we approach the issues from a perspective of life support, supporting the life already begun and receiving support from a woman's body or a father's labors.
No man or woman should engage in sex unless they are willing to nurture and love for the rest of their lives the new life their act might create. Even better is to wait until married to engage in that act - so that when a new life is created, the man and woman new life creators have a life long commitment to each other, and will be there together for that new life.
What's wrong with this sentence?
You forgot "legal." So what do we do that hasn't failed for the past thirty years.
I contend that the definition of insanity as expecting different results from the same actions.
And who made it legal? Who supports it the most? Who makes up most of the government that hasn't abolished it?
The answer is men, men, and men.
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.