Posted on 05/27/2010 10:50:08 AM PDT by markomalley
How much say should a man have in the decision to become a parent?
For Catholics, the answer is easy: A man who doesn’t want to be a parent should not be having sex. That’s where the “freedom of choice” comes in. But the immorality of our secular, pro-abortion culture makes the question significantly more complicated than that.
This month, Elle magazine publishes a story about Greg Bruell, a man who made a pact with his girlfriend that if she became pregnant, she would have an abortion. She had already done that once, but when she became pregnant a second time, she refused to have an abortion. She kept the baby and sought child support.
Infuriated about the “miserable betrayal,” Bruell told Hedrick it was over between them, for good. He believed she’d deliberately gotten pregnant. Then, two months later, as he was leaving a session with his personal trainer, he was served with a lawsuit demanding child support for his unborn child. That’s when Bruell called Mel Feit, a founder of the National Center for Men (NCM), and volunteered to become the next poster boy for male reproductive rights ...
Feit’s list of grievances range from sexist social standards—why should men still be expected to foot the bill on dates? Why is crying or showing weakness verboten for them?—to what he considers discrimination enforced by the state: men’s lack of reproductive rights combined with unfair child support laws. “Reproductive choice isn’t a fundamental right if it’s only limited to people who have internal reproductive systems,” Feit says. “If it only applies to women, it’s a limited right and that weakens it.” In his view, Planned Parenthood’s motto—“Every child a wanted child”—should apply to both people who make the baby.
Undoubtedly, an argument in favor of paternal “freedom of choice” puts abortion proponents in a tricky spot. For example, the article highlights the work of Dalton Conley, the dean of social sciences at New York University, who in his zeal for fathers’ rights dares to argue that “If a father is willing to legally commit to raising a child with no help from the mother, he should be able to obtain an injunction against the abortion of the fetus he helped create.”
Wow. I would guess that most advocates of “reproductive rights” would have difficulty embracing that idea.
If you read the whole sad story, you will find that ultimately Bruell dropped his lawsuit against his girlfriend. He appears to love his family and didn’t have it in him to pursue litigation against them to make a political point.
Let’s pray that human emotion and natural attachment might always score such a quiet victory over attempted perversion of the family unit.
It infuriates feminists, but...
Men must always take the superior and higher higher ground over women in these reproductive rights battles.
If a man fails to act responsibly, he must suffer the consequences.
The feminist (abortionist) movement has greatly harmed women.
This is an example, as is the manner in which Chinese and Indian girls are aborted/exterminated.
Don’t want babies? Have a vasectomy or, at the least, use a condom.
which church?
What a POS.
The last two sentences said it all. How I wish my husband’s family followed that. I agree with you added comments about following the teachings of the Church as well. However, once you have lawyers involved, trust usually goes out the door, even where families are involved.
How about keeping the pants zipped?
>>What a POS.<<
Which one?
>>How about keeping the pants zipped? <<
That is a totally foreign concept in some people’s minds.
Thus, my comments at post#1
Huh?
Mr Feit needs to get off the crack. This fool wants to be given the rights to force a woman to commit abortion? Hey, Feit, if you don't want to have a child, don't have sex. No one is forcing ya to have sex with anybody.
What if you are married? Should you keep your pants zipped then? Your wife gets pregnant, immediately divorces you, so she can hook a bigger fish, and wants child support for twenty years.
In the current feminist court environment, child support is a lucrative business. That's why she didn't have the abortion. She is obviously not opposed to abortion. She talked to a lawyer, did the math, found out how much money was involved and how easy it is to get it and went for the money.
Women know what they are doing. They can manipulate their way into getting pregnant especially in marriage.
Keeping it zipped is fine if you are 15. But as an adult in adult situations, it is not as simple as that. It is more complicated and a certain amount of agreement and trust is required on both sides.
Just my opinion
And if that trust is not there, both women and men better keep those pants zipped whether you're 15 or 51.
Not the scenario in the story, is it?
Keeping it zipped is fine if you are 15. But as an adult in adult situations, it is not as simple as that. It is more complicated and a certain amount of agreement and trust is required on both sides.
Goes back to my comment in post #1, though, doesn't it?
And if kids aren't trained that way from the start and don't see parents model it, actually living family life according to the teachings of the Church will seem even more anachronistic than it does now.
“Don’t want babies? Have a vasectomy or, at the least, use a condom.”
The best is to not have sex. Anything else can fail.
“A man who doesn’t want to be a parent should not be having sex.”
Only men are told to forgo sex, or get sterilized if they are certain they don’t want a kid. Women of course, aren’t held to accountable as a man. If a woman says she never wants to be a parent, she still retains the right to a sex life, but she is allowed to abort for any reason.
The poor sap, doesn’t he understand? Only men can be held strictly accountable for the consequenses of sex. Women are free to behave as they please, and opt out of parenthood on a whim.
It’s like a fun little jet, where only the females seats will eject. So of course she doesn’t mind trying some aerobatics!
That is because the man is always Guilty in the case of a pregnancy. Look at the posts even here, Well, you shouldn't have been having sex, is a common response.
Ok, I'll just move to a mountain top and become a hermit. I can't trust my wife/girlfriend, I can't trust condoms, so no sex for me.
Because if she does become pregnant, even if it is with a turkey baster, it is all my fault. I will be on the hook for twenty years (with no recourse) and the woman can watch Oprah and eat chocolates on the couch while collecting a check every month.
Why doesn't the ‘keep it zipped’ mantra suddenly not apply to the woman?
>>and wants child support for twenty years.<<
Wouldn’t you be supporting your child anyway?
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.