Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

To: LonePalm
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.

Why should the father have to appeal to a court? The aborting woman doesn't; at most, she has to accept a pamphlet and promise to read it. Make paternal abortions safe, legal, "rare," and accessible, just like maternal abortions.

52 posted on 01/28/2003 4:56:37 PM PST by Caesar Soze
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]


To: Caesar Soze
If you are looking for an arguement, you came to the wrong place. This is abuse. Arguements are next door. (Appologies to Monty Python.)

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)

54 posted on 01/28/2003 5:57:06 PM PST by LonePalm (No one expects the Spamish Inquisition.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 52 | View Replies ]

To: Caesar Soze

"Reproductive Rights" is one of those public issues where the inequality between the sexes is rarely discussed.

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.


58 posted on 10/22/2004 7:57:58 AM PDT by DMZFrank
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 52 | View Replies ]

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article


FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson