Roe v Wade and the Rights of the Father

triCity News | 1/23/03 | Tommy DeSeno

[LonePalm]

Justified Right - The Conservative Alternative to triCity

Roe v Wade and the rights of the Father

I propose a "Father's Abortion." Let a Father petition the Court to terminate his own parental rights to his child after the child's birth.

The emphasis must not be on the right to abortion but on the right to privacy and reproductive control. Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg (speaking of a woman's right).

This January 22 marks the 30th anniversary of Roe v Wade, the Supreme Court decision which overturned all State laws that would stop a woman from having an abortion in the first trimester. While the topic I have chosen here, Roe v Wade and the Rights of the Father may sound interesting, actually there is nothing to write about. There are no such rights. A Father can't stop an abortion if he wants his child, nor can he insist upon an abortion if he doesn't want his child. This situation should trouble everyone, not from a religious point of view, but rather from an Equal Rights point of view.

Equal Rights for all people is difficult for any nation to achieve peaceably, because it requires the group in greater power to yield to the group of lesser power. This is usually accomplished only through war. Our own Civil War is a perfect example of equality being created by force, instead of reason and fairness, as it should have been.

This week as I watched and read opinions about Roe v Wade, I could find nothing, not a word among millions that addressed a Father's relationship to his unborn child.

Two weeks ago I tried an experiment in anticipation of writing this column. I put in a column about gun control that I thought only men should vote on the issue of guns. The logic (rather illogic) used by me was that men buy guns the most, men are called upon to use them the most (when a burglar enters our home), and we get shot the most. Why shouldn't men have the only voice on the issue? I wanted to gauge people's reactions to the thought that in America we would ever give more weight to one person's view than another's because that person can show the issue affects him more.

As I walked about the City (Asbury Park, NJ) these two weeks, I was accosted by people who wanted to take me to task for suggesting that women lose their right to vote on an issue just because the may be affected less by it than men. Some pointed out, quite rightly, that even if there was an issue that didn't affect women at all, as equal members of society, they should still have a voice in all decisions America makes. Quite right indeed. So today I pose the question - Where are all these well-reasoned arguements when it comes to a Father and his unborn child? Why do people who have Equal Protection arguments at the ready on other issues suddenly suffer constitutional amnesia when abortion is mentioned?

During every abortion a Father's child dies, so Fathers are affected. There is much written about the post-abortion depression of women. Nothing is mentioned about the Father. After birth a good Father knows his role is protector of his child. His depression must be crippling when the law allows him no chance to save his child from death by an abortion.

The Supreme Court in Roe v Wade found a privacy right in the 14th Amendment, which doesn't have the word privacy in it. Then they found that the privacy right had a "penumbra" containing other rights (penumbra meand a shadowy area at the edge of a shadow). In that shadow they found the abortion right. That bit on mental gymnastics aside, it wasn't the most terrible part of the decision. This was:

The Court said that a woman may not be mentally ready to handle a child at this stage in her life, or the child might interfere with her career path, and that is so important to her that the State has no right to make a law against it.

So I ask today: Might a Father find himself mentally not ready for a child? Might a Father find a child inconvenient to his career path? If these are rights women get to protect by choosing abortion, why not allow Fathers "the right to choose" also? I propose a "Father's Abortion." Let a Father petition the Court to terminate his own parental rights to his child after the chlid's birth. He would be rid of his obligations to that child in favor of his mental health and finances, the same as a woman does when she aborts.

I propose this not because it would be in any way good. I propose it because constitutional Equal Protection demands it, and to show the danger created when judges destroy democracy by making up laws that don't exist. "Father's Abortion." It's high time for a test case.

Tommy DeSeno is a lawyer in downtown Asbury Park.

[LonePalm]

An excellent article about an issue that has troubled me for years but didn't have the legal training to properly frame the arguement.

I would dearly love to see the liberals attack this while defending abortion.

Garde la Foi, mes amis! Nous nous sommes les sauveurs de la République! Maintenant et Toujours!
(Keep the Faith, my friends! We are the saviors of the Republic! Now and Forever!)
LonePalm, le Républicain du verre cassé (The Broken Glass Republican)

[LonePalm]

I thought you would like this. Please foward this to your ping list, less me.

Garde la Foi, mes amis! Nous nous sommes les sauveurs de la République! Maintenant et Toujours!
(Keep the Faith, my friends! We are the saviors of the Republic! Now and Forever!)
LonePalm, le Républicain du verre cassé (The Broken Glass Republican)

[xsmommy]

Then they found that the privacy right had a "penumbra" containing other rights

great article, loney. let's see if there are any father's rights lurking in them thar "penumbras".... you just never know what you might run across in a penumbra. /sarcasm

[LonePalm]

Garde la Foi, mes amis! Nous nous sommes les sauveurs de la République! Maintenant et Toujours!
(Keep the Faith, my friends! We are the saviors of the Republic! Now and Forever!)
LonePalm, le Républicain du verre cassé (The Broken Glass Republican)

[Coleus]

Good Postn Ping to NJ, abortion, pro life, Fatherhood and Feminist Watch lists,

[LisaAnne]

I'm just curious and certainly do not want to sound antagonist... Your tag regard Ru486. Don't most women take that pill the day or week after they have been raped or had relations unprotected? Or are there other times it is used?

[LisaAnne]

antagonistic.... *sigh* proof read, proof read, proof read.

[firewalk]

Thank you for the ping Coleus (good article)

[heyheyhey]

Thanks for the ping.

[Paul Atreides]

The only rights a father has is the right to make out a child support check. Before the birth, the father is considered as useful as a condom with the end clipped off. After the birth, watch out! Suddenly, that baby would not be there but for him.

I think that a man should accept the responsibility for his children, but the feminazis want it both ways.

Odd how they don't label it a choice issue when a woman wants to keep her septuplets, when a woman wants to be a surrogate mother, or when a woman wants to be a model.

[heyheyhey]

RU 486 is an abortifacient as it kills a conceived human being in his/her mother's womb. Regardless of how the conception originated RU 486 has a single purpose; to induce a miscarriage and subsequently kill the baby.

Majority of the pro-life citizens opposed to surgical abortions also oppose the use of RU 486 and euthanasia ("mercy" killings).

Q: Why are pro-lifers persistently called by the massmedia "anti-abortion activists"?

A: Because it sounds more creepy.
Otherwise, "anti-abortion" is a very limited term and does not apply properly to the pro-life movement.

[carenot]

I would dearly love to see the liberals attack this while defending abortion.

I had never thought of it this way. I knew that it wasn't right. I just didn't know how to say it. Men have to pay but they have no say if a woman kills his baby.

[Coleus]

Don't most women take that pill the day or week after they have been raped or had relations unprotected?>>

Yes, and that is how it kills babies. Most women, when raped, call the police and go to a hospital where DNA samples are taken, then a D & C is conducted. Oh, and it'
s not as easy as taking " a Pill" read the last few paragraphs.

What is it?

RU-486 (also known as mifepristone) is a chemical used to cause abortion. It was first developed in France in 1981, and has recently been brought to America. Although it is referred to as "the abortion pill," it is actually three pills taken at once.

RU-486 is a man-made steroid designed to work against a woman's normal, natural state during pregnancy. Sometimes it is called a "medical abortion" or "chemical abortion" because it does not involve surgery, unless the chemicals fail to kill the baby.

Abortion is an act of direct killing that takes the life of a tiny human being-a life that begins at fertilization.

How does it work?

During pregnancy, the preborn baby requires a chemical called progesterone. This chemical is produced naturally in the mother's body. It is so valuable to the baby's proper growth and development that some call it "nature's pregnancy hormone."

RU-486 works against this hormone. It breaks down and then destroys the surroundings the baby has established in his mother's womb, and eventually destroys the baby as well. The chemical cuts off nourishment to the preborn child, who starves to death inside his mother's womb.

But RU-486 does not work alone. A second chemical is also involved.

How does this second chemical work?

The second chemical (misoprostol), causes cramping and contractions. After RU-486 has killed the tiny boy or girl through starvation, this second chemical is designed to push the dead baby out of the mother's womb.

How is an RU-486 abortion done?

During her first visit to the doctor's office or clinic, the woman is given RU-486 pills. This will kill her baby in the womb.

During her second visit, the woman is given pills or suppositories containing the second chemical (misoprostol). This will cause cramping, and the woman will eventually expel the dead baby. This could happen at any time after this drug is taken.

During her final doctor's office or clinic visit, a doctor will examine the woman to see if her abortion is complete. If the RU-486 abortion has failed, the woman will then be scheduled for surgical abortion.

Is an RU-486 abortion safe?

No. Women have died because of RU-486 abortions. Here are some of the side effects:

nausea
abdominal pain
vomiting
heavy and extended bleeding
heart attack
hemorrhage
impaired future fertility
harmful to any future children
What should I do?

If you are pregnant, don't abort your baby. Don't be pressured into getting an abortion.

There are people willing to help you, listen to your concerns, arrange good prenatal care for you and be supportive as you decide what is best for you and your baby.

Be good to yourself-be good to your baby!

Sources:

"A Consumer's Guide to the Pill and Other Drugs," by pharmacist/researcher John Wilks.

"Infant Homicides Through Contraceptives," by pharmacist Bogomir Kuhar; 2nd edition 1995.

Medical consultant: Stephen Spaulding, M.D. Dr. Spaulding is a board-certified family practitioner whose writings have appeared in a variety of medical journals.


"The chemical that will kill millions more babies and maim untold thousands of women received approval from the abortion industry's number one ally: the Food and Drug Administration,". "Contrary to what presidential candidate Al Gore has claimed regarding the 'safety' of this chemical, the fact is, it will not be safe for one child. RU-486 kills innocent human persons. RU-486 is a chemical assault weapon aimed at the tiniest babies. RU-486 is an affront to the inalienable rights of the human child who is endowed with personhood at conception/fertilization.

"The US Congress must resolve to conduct oversight hearings at once so that the FDA is held accountable for this raw, inhumane decision that will destroy babies and maim women. We will not cease our efforts until personhood is restored to all Americans, and until women are protected from sadistic Big Abortion."
___________________________________________________________________

So, now French women can use this pill privately to abort?

No! Following is the schedule that must be followed today in France if a woman wishes to abort using RU-486:

She must have a pregnancy test and have the preborn child dated.

She must undergo a pelvic exam, a blood test, and an ultrasound exam using an intravaginal probe.

After a one-week waiting period, she takes three RU-486 tablets registered under her name and leaves the clinic.

36 to 48 hours later she receives an injection of a synthetic prostaglandin and stays in the clinic for about four hours for monitoring.

She returns to the clinic seven days later to ensure that the abortion is complete and to have her bleeding monitored.

If the pill has failed, she must have a surgical abortion.[4]
According to some medical reports, the pill fails approximately five percent of the time.[5] Others put the failure rate at ten percent or more.[6]

Is RU-486 safe?

RU-486 has also been combined with other chemicals, like sulprostone, in order to make the death of the preborn child more certain. However, it has been reported that when sulprostone is used, the incidence of babies born with malformations (babies who survive the abortion attempt) and the incidence of women dying does increase.[7]

An account of an RU-486 abortion done on one American girl, 17 years of age, who traveled to England suggests that there are many "unpleasant side effects, including nausea, vomiting and diarrhea." The young woman, Aimee, told the reporter, "I felt like I was dying...it hurt so much. I had contractions coming so fast, and I was sick to my stomach and dry heaving. I couldn't stop trembling and I felt so hot."[8]

Bernard N. Nathanson, M.D., has commented, regarding the administration of RU-486 plus a prostaglandin backup: "These new drugs are a frightening throwback to barbarism and an ominous harbinger of the deterioration of the health of women and children worldwide. They represent perhaps the greatest threat yet to life, liberty and the family in this generation."[9]

In a letter dated April 12, 1990, a group of French health professionals warned of the hazards that RU-486, in combination with the use of other chemicals, posed to women who use it.

Dr. Raymond Godefroid, R.Ph., wrote, "Menstrual periods that last an average of 12 days, hemorrhage severe enough to require blood transfusion, and pain in 10% of the patients severe enough to require administration of parenteral narcotics should not be given the 'safe' label...The fact that premeditated pregnancy termination [abortion] is an unnatural and traumatic event, no matter what the modus operandi, makes this antiprogesterone steroid just another abortifacient..."[10]

Five cases of congenital malformation were reported in the December 21-28, 1991, edition of The Lancet, a British medical journal.

The April 30, 1991, Washington Post (p. 5) reported that the French government banned the use of RU-486 by smokers and women over the age of 35 due to serious complications and the death of one woman.

According to a letter by Karen Masulis, R.N., in the May 27, 1991, edition of Nurseweek, most women who use RU-486 "bleed heavily and continue to bleed heavily for 10 days"; "one in 1,000 women bleeds so heavily she requires a transfusion"; "nausea, vomiting, abdominal pain and diarrhea are common side effects" as well.[11]

In a June 19, 1991, letter, Dr. Carl Peck of the United States Department of Health and Human Services wrote: "[The] FDA continues to believe that the RU-486 regimen poses an unreasonable safety risk which makes it inappropriate for release under our personal importation policy."
Commenting on a French clinical study done on the "safety" of RU-486 that was reported in the March 8, 1990, New England Journal of Medicine, Herbert Ratner, M.D., stated:

"[The] six authors who conclude that RU-486 with prostaglandin is 'an effective and safe method for the early termination of pregnancy' are all employees of the company that will earn huge profits if RU-486 gets wide acceptance. Controlling bias favoring their company's product is nearly unsurmountable...

"The women were monitored as inpatients for 4 days and then left the center. However 'seventy-five women [out of 2115] did not return for follow-up after they had received prostaglandin analogues' and were dropped out of the study. There is no indication that an attempt was made to track down the delinquents. As epidemiologists know 'it is the patients who drop out of the trials who are much more important than the patients who stay in them.' One wonders, then, whether any had died, or whether some had ended up elsewhere with complications which require a general care facility."[12]

Most shocking is the fact that after only 17 months of animal research conducted in France, the testing of RU-486 was deemed sufficient for it to be tested on women, who became the human guinea pigs for further testing.[13]

[LisaAnne]

okay.. before I read that entire post. Are you saying that the day after they are impregnated and they choose to have a DC or take the RU pill that is killing a baby?

[TruthShallSetYouFree]

This is a troubling issue. Perhaps, before engaging in intercourse, both parties should be made to sign a contract stating that, should a pregnancy result from their actions, they agree to either one of the following:

1. To carry the baby full-term, and the father will be liable for support, or
2. The mother has her choice of what to do, but if she chooses to have the baby, the father will not be liable for support.

Of course, they have to read and sign this before alcohol and/or passion clouds their judgment.

[Coleus]

abortifacient>>

thanks, I have to add that to my lexicon, I was going to use that term in my post to lisa anne and just couldn't find a way to spell it??

[Coleus]

Yes, life begins at Conception. By your two questions in the prior posts, I think you believe the contrary? For me, it's against my religion to think any other way. The Scientific embryonic articles explain why it's a life at Conception.

Are unborn children human beings? Are they persons? No doubt about it. The following essays argue the pro-life case...

http://www.vanderbilt.edu/SFL/dnirving_--_human_beginning.htm

When Do Human Beings Begin? -- by Dianne N. Irving, Ph.D. In this essay, former NIH bench research biochemist Dianne Irving demonstrates the scientific fact that the lives of human beings--and human persons--begin at conception.
Personhood Begins At Conception

http://www.vanderbilt.edu/SFL/peter_kreeft_--_personhood_begins_at_conception.htm

-- by Peter Kreeft, Ph.D. Professor Kreeft explains what exactly a "person" is and why the various philosophical positions which deny that the unborn child is a person are themselves inadequate.

http://www.vanderbilt.edu/SFL/francis_beckwith_--.htm

Is the Unborn Less Than Human? -- by Francis J. Beckwith, Ph.D. In this essay, Dr. Beckwith lays out the scientific facts surrounding human development and explains why it does not make sense to argue that a human being is created at implantation, quickening, or birth.

http://www.vanderbilt.edu/SFL/francis_beckwith2_--_is_the_unborn_less_than_human.htm

When Does a Human Become a Person? -- by Francis J. Beckwith, Ph.D. Continuing the previous essay, Dr. Beckwith demonstrates why other functional criteria given for personhood--such as sentience, brain development, and viability--are inadequate. He then refutes the "gradualist" position, which incorrectly asserts that the unborn becomes more and more human as the pregnancy progresses. Finally, he discusses the positions of various abortion and infanticide advocates like James Rachels, Mary Wollenkott, and Michael Tooley.

http://www.vanderbilt.edu/SFL/francis_beckwith_004.htm


Does Life Begin At Implantation? -- by Francis J. Beckwith, Ph.D. In this essay, Dr. Beckwith addresses the phenomena of monozygotic twinning, hydatiform moles, choriocarcinoma, blighted ova, cloning, and fertilization wastage. He then shows how these phenomena fail to disprove the position that human life begins at conception.

http://www.vanderbilt.edu/SFL/dnirvinglarger.htm

Scientific and Philosophical Expertise: An Evaluation of the Arguments on Personhood -- by Dianne N. Irving, Ph.D. In this essay, biochemist Dianne Irving argues that positions which assert that early human embryos are not persons are based on inadequate philosophical principles and faulty scientific data.

http://www.vanderbilt.edu/SFL/ThomistFertilization.htm

The Human Rational Soul in the Early Embryo -- by Stephen Heaney, Ph.D. In this essay, Professor Heaney discusses the various theories of "ensoulment" that permeate philosophical (and theological) discussions on abortion.

http://www.vanderbilt.edu/SFL/scott_sullivan.htm

A Survey of Arguments for Immediate versus Delayed Animation -- by Scott Sullivan. In this essay, Thomist Philosopher Scott Sullivan critically analyzes the theory of mediate animation.


http://www.vanderbilt.edu/SFL/lejeune_testimony.htm
The Tiniest Humans -- an interview with the renowned geneticist Jerome Lejeune and the father of modern embryology, Sir Albert William Liley

[stopsign]

Well, As I have said many of times.The father has no rights, only the mother.Not fair. And as far as abortion goes, My mother has often told she's for abortion any time after the child is born. And still threatens me with it even though I'm 41. (I believe she will go through with it so I don't push her).
Fathers need equal rights.

[LisaAnne]

I will not argue with your right be believe what you want. If your religion dictates that, then that's the way it is for you. I see that from your profile that the only time you post it has to do with abortion. Apparently you feel quite strongly about that.

I will say, however, that if you really think that you and your groups will ever abolish abortion completely in this country and to the extent you want it, you will not.

You do more to hurt your cause than to forward it by bringing your religious views into it. This is not a "religious nation", we are secular.

And before you start accusing me of wanting to murder children, you are wrong. But, I do not believe that any law is going to stop it from happening. Abortion will be reduced when peoples hearts and minds are changed. No law ever prevented "murder".

As I see it, many of the anti abortion groups should join forces, set up homes for unwed mothers, help the women that find homes for their children. Yelling and preaching at people, calling them murderers or sinners and trying to pass laws will, in the end, do nothing. Compassion and help to those who need it will do more good than any protest or law.

[stopsign]

"So I ask today: Might a Father find himself mentally not ready for a child? Might a Father find a child inconvenient to his career path? If these are rights women get to protect by choosing abortion, why not allow Fathers "the right to choose" also? I propose a "Father's Abortion." Let a Father petition the Court to terminate his own parental rights to his child after the chlid's birth. He would be rid of his obligations to that child in favor of his mental health and finances, the same as a woman does when she aborts."

Well sorry to say, I don't see this happening. Even though I'm with you.

[Coleus]

I will say, however, that if you really think that you and your groups will ever abolish abortion completely in this country and to the extent you want it, you will not.>>>

You will never get rid of rape, will you? But I sure bet you want laws against it, NO? The same here with abortion. And how does religion? hurt the abortion cause? God has nothing to do with life and death? Hmmm, I've never heard that one before. And where the heck did I accuse you of murdering children? Are you telling me you are a frequent consumer of RU-486? You started prying and I started responding, I just wish you came right out and stated your views instead of playing games.

And I beg to differ with you, we are a very religious nation where religious freedom prevails and where our founding fathers wanted God in the daily lives of all Americans only not to have an official "American" religion if you are referring to the establishment clause.

>>>>As I see it, many of the anti abortion groups should join forces, set up homes for unwed mothers, help the women that find homes for their children. >>>>

And we are helping women with pregnancies, It's being done all over usually started by the pro life people.
http://www.priestsforlife.org/brochures/thebible.html
http://www.womenandchildrenfirst.org/
http://www.pregnancycenters.org/
http://www.birthright.org/
http://www.abortionalternatives.com/flash/index.html
http://www.skylace.net/adoption/g-agencies.php3
http://www.friendship-center.org/where.htm
http://www.care-net.org/homeframeset.html
http://www.abortionbreastcancer.com/
http://www.rosegardenhome.org
http://www.theopendoor.com/
http://www.feministsforlife.org/cop/ads.htm
http://lifesavers.glorifyjesus.com/

And yes, RU-486 does indeed, KILL Babies.

[Hotdog]

Posted by Hotdog to therut
On News/Activism 01/22/2003 11:01 PM EST #20 of 33

I wrote this in 1973...I rest my case!


I've got a son that never came.
One that flew kites and arrow-planes.
One that danced in the springtime rains.
Don't know why or who's to blame.
But I've got a son that never came.

Bullfrogs and butterflies he'll never see.
He'll stroll through an open field, but not with me.

There was a time his heart beat strong.
It beat with rhythm as in a song.
And to me his love belonged.
Don't know why or what went wrong.
But there was a time his heart beat strong.

It's left in my mind and my heart will tease.
There's no love in my life for my son and me.

Before I had a chance to fight.
They took my son up a flight.
To a room to take his life.
Don't know why I had no rights.
Before I had a chance to fight.

Then five months early they stole him from his womb.
Laid him in a corner and watched him die in his tomb.

But for one split second I thought I heard him cry...
"I'm gonna have to leave you now. I love you Dad. Goodbye."

[stopsign]

Please put me on your ping list.
Thanks.

[stopsign]

Well said.

[Hotdog]

Thanks...

[carenot]

But for one split second I thought I heard him cry... "I'm gonna have to leave you now. I love you Dad. Goodbye."

My God, how terrible for you.

[Hotdog]

Sometimes the truth hurts!

[carenot]

Sometimes the truth hurts!

Yes, it does. That is why I want pictures of dead and dismembered babies shown everywhere.

[LisaAnne]

And how does religion? hurt the abortion cause?
I'm saying that bringing your personal view of religion does not help the cause, as many of those you are trying to reach religion would not make them stop.
God has nothing to do with life and death? Hmmm, I've never heard that one before.
Yes, of course God has a hand in life or death, but mostly people do.
And where the heck did I accuse you of murdering children?
Just thought you might think I was taking a pro choice posisiton,as this subject seems to be highly emotional.
Are you telling me you are a frequent consumer of RU-486?
No, never had the need for it and would probably not use it if I did.
You started prying and I started responding, I just wish you came right out and stated your views instead of playing games.
I didn't realize I was prying, I was only asking a couple quesitons.

[LiteKeeper]

read later

[Coleus]

I was only asking a couple quesitons.>>

C'mon, you knew the answers before you asked me :)

[Hotdog]

have to say I don't want to see this but if thats what it takes...then so be it!

[yendu bwam]

It is an abomination of the highest degree that a father have no rights regarding his unborn child. The worst part of it is children are killed by mothers in instances where fathers would love and nourish and cherish those children. Such is evil.

[GovernmentShrinker]

I am absolutely pro-choice and absolutely opposed to requiring biological fathers to pay any child support whatsoever, unless they contracted to do so prior to or during the pregnancy (and marriage, at least under current law, is construed as such a contract). Too many women out there are getting pregnant on purpose, while claiming to be on the pill, in attempts to keep a man who doesn't want to be kept. If a woman allows herself to become pregnant and exercises her choice to remain pregnant, the child is HER responsibility.

And as for men who object to their biological child being aborted, I'd recommend being more careful where they deposit their sperm. But contracts covering these things ought to be enforceable like any other contract (per that long forgotten clause in the Constitution about the government not interfering with people entering into contracts). If a man wants to be able to block an abortion, he'd better get that in writing beforehand.

[Mixer]

Good Post!

[jjm2111]

Great post Coleus. Bump to the top! (and for later reading for those links). Will help me polish my debating skills on this issue.

[jjm2111]

That was VERY moving.

[Coleus]

The only rights a father has is the right to make out a child support check.>>>>

Yep, you got that right. But men are "partially" to blame since traditionally they do not vote as much as woman. When you look at campaign literature from state and federal candidates, at least in my state, you see that the politician panders to the female by mentioning: mammograms, breast cancer screenings, minimum stays in hospitals after giving birth, etc. it makes it look like they are running for public health nurse instead of a legislator. So, laws are passed and judges are appointed with this mentality.

But that's the way the system works, more woman vote, more women write letters to the editor, more women are active in school pta's, and more women talk about politics, just look at that so-called million mom march. Well the politicians pander to these type of voters. I've never seen more than one hundred people at a freeper event, and guess what, there seems to be more woman at those too.

There's a lot of men who are satisfied with the system so long as they have a job and can pay the bills so they don't vote.

So, until men start organizing and voting, the laws will not change.

[heyheyhey]

-- Abortion will be reduced when peoples hearts and minds are changed.

Very true. It is worth noting however, that the present pro-abortion laws do not represent the people's attitudes. I just posted an article about it.

-- No law ever prevented "murder".

True, but... no law should ever allow killing innocent humans.

-- Yelling and preaching at people, calling them murderers or sinners and trying to pass laws will, in the end, do nothing. Compassion and help to those who need it will do more good than any protest or law.

Both are essential -- preaching the Truth and acts of charity.

[farmfriend]

Please add me to your ping lists. Thanks.

[farmfriend]

Just incase you haven't been pinged already.

[Coleus]

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/fr/830179/posts

[farmfriend]

The Myth of Male Power

Why Men Are The Disposable Sex
by Warren Farrell
(Simon & Schuster, 1993) 446 pages.

In page after page, chapter after chapter, Farrell reveals mind-boggling facts that show that, contrary to the claims of the 'victim-feminists', women get preferential treatment in many areas of society, and that, as the title of the book indicates, men's power is a myth. Example: statistically, men make up far larger numbers of prison inmates. Is this because men are innately more criminal? Or is it because (1) women are considered less as suspects in crimes? or (2) women suspects do not usually receive the same degree of interrogation as male suspects? or (3) courts are far less likely to convict a defendant found guilty if that person's gender is female? or (4) a woman's prison sentence is likely to be significantly shorter than a male's for a comparable crime? or (5) when women have a male 'partner in crime', the male invariably takes the rap?

If men are the powerful sex, why do they make up 6 out of 7 suicides? Why do we accept that men, and men only, being sent in vast numbers to die in war? Why are 9 in 10 workplace deaths males? Why does breast cancer research receive over six times the funding that prostate cancer research does? Why do women live longer?

A masculinist bump for fathers rights.

[CanisMajor2002]

This is a troubling issue. Perhaps, before engaging in intercourse, both parties should be made to sign a contract stating that, should a pregnancy result from their actions, they agree to either one of the following:

1. To carry the baby full-term, and the father will be liable for support, or
2. The mother has her choice of what to do, but if she chooses to have the baby, the father will not be liable for support.

Of course, they have to read and sign this before alcohol and/or passion clouds their judgment.

ROFL...Instant shortage of Notaries Public...

[farmfriend]

Have you read the book The Myth of Male Power? It is a good read. See my link above.

[stopsign]

No, but i will read your link.
I agree with your moto.

[Coleus]

ping

[Coleus]

It Starts in Childhood, read "The War Against Boys". More boys are left back, are in special ed, drop out, get arrested, take drugs, get lower grades, and fewer go to college and are valedictorians.

http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ASIN/0684849577/qid=1010179628/sr=8-1/ref=sr_8_3_1/002-0565676-2218456

http://umbc7.umbc.edu/~korenman/wmst/hoffsommers.html

http://search.dogpile.com/texis/search?q=%22The+War+Against+Boys%22&geo=no&fs=web

http://www.friesian.com/sommers.htm

http://www.cblpolicyinstitute.org/waragainst.htm

http://www.humaneventsonline.com/articles/11-24-00/harder.html

[farmfriend]

God saw fit to give me boys to raise. Nate just turned 14 and is a registered freeper. Ken will be 11 in March. I had to complain about one Vice Principal. She had a real sexual bias against boys. The girls could do no wrong even with witnesses.