Roe v. Wade for Men

http://tinyurl.com/nkrt5

JayR wrote:

http://tinyurl.com/nkrt5

There was quite a lot of time devoted to this issue on a local talk
radio show. The (conservative) host was basically using it as a tool to
tear down legalized abortion, and I suspect this is mostly what this
court case will be used for by the conservative media (the liberal media
will deride or simply ignore it). He even made the requisite derogatory
statements about those "deadbeat dads" toward the end of his program,
though he had been promoting choice for men earlier as a way of baiting
right-to-abortion callers.

I have to admit it was fun listening to feminists squirm over the NOW's
statements that essentially boiled down to the courts having a
responsibility to see to the rights of unborn children.

Again, the easy out for the status quo is to state that forcing men into
parenthood is different from forcing women into parenthood because men
are forced into parenthood after a child is born, with the unborn child
being protected by the mother's right to her own body until then.
Still, it's nice to hear some of these issues being discussed, even if
only as political fodder for pro-choice activists.

- Ron ^*^

"Werebat" wrote in message
newsS4Qf.135707$0G.131442@dukeread10...


JayR wrote:

http://tinyurl.com/nkrt5

There was quite a lot of time devoted to this issue on a local talk
radio show. The (conservative) host was basically using it as a tool to
tear down legalized abortion, and I suspect this is mostly what this
court case will be used for by the conservative media (the liberal media
will deride or simply ignore it). He even made the requisite derogatory
statements about those "deadbeat dads" toward the end of his program,
though he had been promoting choice for men earlier as a way of baiting
right-to-abortion callers.

I have to admit it was fun listening to feminists squirm over the NOW's
statements that essentially boiled down to the courts having a
responsibility to see to the rights of unborn children.

Again, the easy out for the status quo is to state that forcing men into
parenthood is different from forcing women into parenthood because men
are forced into parenthood after a child is born, with the unborn child
being protected by the mother's right to her own body until then.
Still, it's nice to hear some of these issues being discussed, even if
only as political fodder for pro-choice activists.

There is the men's side of this argument too. The feminists want to define
a father's parental rights and responsibilities start at child birth. That
is why the femwits are so against allowing father's access to the legal
system regarding wrongful death of a mother and unborn child. But all the
legal arguments allow father's to pursue justice in the legal system for the
death of an unborn child when the unborn child is murdered.

These types of cases keep demonstrating father's do in fact have parental
rights prior to a child's birth. If fathers can sue for wrongful death of
an unborn child at the hands of a murderer, a father could sue for death of
his child by the woman's decision to have an abortion. The femwits are
against anything that extends similar rights to fathers because they come
with a potential downside for women.

NOW has a long history of making situational arguments on both sides of the
women's rights issues depending on how men's rights advocates try to come
the the issues.

Thanks for posting, JayR. Even though the case is almost impossible to win,
I'm really happy to see it going to court. The attempt is very admirable.
Guys, this is just a start. We need one more case after another like this.
Just like the courts have shoved wrongful parenthood down our throats for 30
years, we need to shove the legal, unconstitutional mess that is the US
child support system in their face and clog the system. We need to make them
listen, once and for all. Matt Dubay is my hero.

-Father By Force



"JayR" wrote in message
...
http://tinyurl.com/nkrt5

"Bob Whiteside" wrote in

Again, the easy out for the status quo is to state that forcing men into
parenthood is different from forcing women into parenthood because men
are forced into parenthood after a child is born, with the unborn child
being protected by the mother's right to her own body until then.


Do people really think that a System or Government can solve all thier
personal problems by forcing others to abide by their own personal wishes
and using the law as a tool to manipulate & strong arm their agenda?

Government is supposed to assure equal rights for all, they have lost all
concept of that!

The best thing the Government could do is bow out of this Woman's/Mens
rights issues all together and just let families sort things out.
Governments were setup to built roads and control infa structure & Defence,
they have absolutely no business trying to control people's personal lives
or solve their personal problems.

In this case, that 20 year woman made some bad decisions on her own, let her
and her family deal with it.
The tax payers haven't saved a dime since all this business of getting law
enforcment & the courts involved, so what good has it done? If all the
child support laws went away tomorrow, would any child die of starvation?

"Werebat" wrote in message
newsS4Qf.135707$0G.131442@dukeread10...


JayR wrote:

http://tinyurl.com/nkrt5

There was quite a lot of time devoted to this issue on a local talk radio
show. The (conservative) host was basically using it as a tool to tear
down legalized abortion, and I suspect this is mostly what this court case
will be used for by the conservative media (the liberal media will deride
or simply ignore it). He even made the requisite derogatory statements
about those "deadbeat dads" toward the end of his program, though he had
been promoting choice for men earlier as a way of baiting
right-to-abortion callers.

I have to admit it was fun listening to feminists squirm over the NOW's
statements that essentially boiled down to the courts having a
responsibility to see to the rights of unborn children.

Again, the easy out for the status quo is to state that forcing men into
parenthood is different from forcing women into parenthood because men are
forced into parenthood after a child is born, with the unborn child being
protected by the mother's right to her own body until then. Still, it's
nice to hear some of these issues being discussed, even if only as
political fodder for pro-choice activists.

- Ron ^*^

It seems to me that no intelligent and honest person can dispute the
notion that there is gross discrimination against men in this context. It's
an open and shut case.

Apparently, feminists maintain that women must not only have
preconception choice (via abstention or birth control), but they must also
have post-conception choice (via abortion--including the nauseating practice
of infanticide through partial birth abortion--plus newborn drop-off laws
and the unilateral ability to have the child adopted).

However, these very same feminists (note the comments of Kim Gandy, the
head of the National Organization for Women) also say that men must on no
account have any post-conception choices. The feminists say this despite
the fact that the man's post-conception choice--legally renouncing his
paternal rights AND responsibilities--involves nothing more than a legal
document, and does not involve the termination of a life.

What is the reason for this feminist inconsistency? Kim Gandy says it's
about the interests of the child. That's complete baloney, and she must
know it. She also knows that no reporter who interviews her will be so
politically incorrect as to point this out to her. Why is the Gandy answer
baloney? In the first place, the man involved has to pay the money to the
child's mother, who can spend it any way she likes. Secondly, how can
people like Gandy reconcile their complete absence of concern for unborn
children with their supposed tender solicitude for the interests of children
after they are born?

The current situation reflects nothing more than the inability of men to
protect their interests when those interests are in conflict with those of
women. It also reflects the strength of feminist special interest groups,
which are concerned only with promoting the interests of women, where
necessary at the expense of men and children. It's the crudest kind of
politics, and that politics extends not just to legislatures but to judges,
who in the U.S. today are nothing more than another kind of politician.