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

To: nickcarraway
What a strange world we live in... where we tell men (rightfully) that they either "keep it in their pants" or live with the consequences of their choices.

Yet give women a free pass for murder, when THEIR choices lead to "inconvenience".

Is the left basically saying that women are unable to be responsible?

5 posted on 11/15/2004 6:52:53 PM PST by bikepacker67 ("This is the best election night in history." -- DNC chairman Terry McAuliffe 11/2/04 8pm)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]


To: bikepacker67

Any guy who would encourage a woman to kill their baby in the womb should be dumped IMMEDIATELY. How can he respect her if he doesn't respect their own child? Let alone how can he respect her when he's just using her sexually? Lastly, parents should never be in the dark about something as serious as a pregnancy. Kids need permission to do all sorts of things, yet a parent has no right to know if their daughter is seeking an abortion? It's all so absurd.


12 posted on 11/15/2004 8:59:22 PM PST by freeparella (I will always thank the Lord; I will never stop praising Him.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies ]

To: bikepacker67

"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.


15 posted on 11/18/2004 1:41:18 PM PST by DMZFrank
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | 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