|
This discussion has been archived.
No new comments can be posted.
|
 |
|
|
|
by Anonymous User on 01:58 PM June 3rd, 2004 EST (#1)
|
|
|
|
|
I guess what they say is true.
The "fetus" is only a human being if the mother wants it.
If she doesn't want it, it's just a blob of tissue.
Yeah, that makes sence.
WARPED and selective sence.
Thundercloud.
"Hoka hey!"
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
I'm preparing the following letter to the editor of my local paper. Comments welcome.
To The Editor:
Last month, we observed the anniversary of Roe v. Wade. This decision has disenfranchised fatherhood and invested with women the sole and deciding authority in all decisions reproductive.
There are some undeniable facts that deserve to be recalled. 1) Human reproduction is a two-part process, one female, one male. Prior to conception, the sperm and the egg are static, unchanging. 2) There is no less ambiguous definition of the beginning of human life as the moment of conception. Every other definition requires an explanation or equivocation. When does the soul enter the body? When is a fetus “viable?” 3) Nearly from the moment of conception, the new life has an identity of its own, neither a copy of the mother nor of the father. It is unique. 4) Of the seventy-odd year lifespan of a typical human being, it is only the first nine months that are spent in the mother’s womb. Mothers deserve our undying respect for bearing this burden, but it still represents only about 1 percent of a typical person’s lifespan. 5) From the moment of birth onward, it is clear that children fare better when they have two parents, one mother, one father. Notwithstanding the success of some, children in single-parent households are generally at higher risk.
Rarely has society allowed the decision to take a life to be invested in one person. We require at least thirteen people to participate in exacting the death penalty: twelve jurors and one judge. Yet the decision to end a pregnancy is left in the hands of one person.
We may justly decide to allow abortion to remain safe and legal. However, we must restore fatherhood to its rightful place in partnership with motherhood. The child has a right to the best judgment and wishes of two parents. We need to give this new life at least that much of a chance.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Well said
Just one thought, is pregnancy to be considered a burden?
a comment of his own making, westcoast2
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Being a father three times over, and accompanying my wife through all of it, I have to say it is a burden. It's a bearable burden, but it's one that was life threatening not all that long ago. Notwithstanding the fact that life is given by the union of the mother AND the father (not just the mother as some would have us believe), pregnancy takes its toll.
If we buy into the notion that men and women are biologivally different, and that their biological makeup is synergistic, then we have to recognize this.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
I am going to throw this out there as food for thought. I am trying to educate myself and be educated about this and many of these other issues. Please forgive me if this sounds naive(sp?). I am truly interested in hearing ideas as to how this issue can be resolved. For instance, what if it was the man who didn't want the child and the woman did, and by changing the laws, he is forced into fatherhood? I am very curious about what you think the solution and law should be (beyond that abortion should be illegal).
Fight Justice with Truth Not Hate
And Justice for All
Nancy
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
oops that should have said
"Fight FEMINISM with Truth Not Hate"
*smacks her fingers REALLY hard*
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
I like the idea, from what I've heard so far, of providing the male with reproductive choice. That is, the biological father would have a window of opportunity during the pregnancy in which to legally opt out of all paternal rights and responsibilities. This would apply only to pregnancies out-of-wedlock of course. The pregnant woman would have an obligation to notify the known or suspected bio dad and establish paternity within a certain period of time. It's not risk free, but at least it gives the man the same ability to opt out of parenthood that the women enjoy -- and doesn't take away women's current options. Except the option to force an unwilling man to become a father.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Gregory, I am not sure I understand. Not to be crude here, but what window of opportunity? Does she sign some statement before the act? And, if there is a window of opportunity where he can legally opt out... how can she?
Fight Feminism With Truth Not Hate
And Justice For All
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
The obvious one seems to me to be the nine months of gestation. However, even with allowances for partial birth abortions, there seems to be a limit on late terms abortions that's less than nine months.
From my perspective, though, I'm not even considering the issues related to men choosing not to be fathers. My position isn't steeped in the C4M position. I'm just talking about the choice to continue or terminate the pregnancy. I think this is so fundamental that the other issues will be OBE.
Think about it: the current issue surrounding late-term (partial-birth) abortion may never have emerged if Roe v. Wade hadn't dismissed father's from reproductive decisions. This is just another manifestation of the state as substitute father. It's highly likely that there would be FAR fewer abortions, and that there wouldn't be enough late term abortions occurring to catch anyones attention.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
You are right. Several places allow the woman to give up the baby with no questions asked at certain locations. No efforts are made to find out if the father wants to take over guardianship of the baby. The assumption seems to be that all single men would prefer to be childless. I personally might like to be a single father someday, but I would want to have sole custody. This may seem selfish to some, but it seems to be the only way to ensure that that child could never be taken from me.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
My understanding is that during a limited period of time while the woman is pregnant, the bio dad would have the legal option to give up all paternal rights and responsibilities. After paternity has been established, the man would sign an official document. Women already have the unilateral right to opt out of maternity by having an abortion, putting the child up for adoption or through safe-haven abandonment. All choice for men does in this context is give men the option to avoid unwanted fatherhood.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
>...what if it was the man who didn't want the child and the woman did, and by changing the laws, he is forced into fatherhood?
What if? What are you talking about?
Men are forced into fatherhood everyday when the woman wants the child and the man doesn't. That's currently standard operation procedure. It's called "choice for women (only)". Change the laws whereby the man is forced into fatherhood? That's the way the laws are now. What laws are you talking about changing?
Fight justice with truth? You want to fight justice? You sound a little like the guy I saw on one of the news magazine TV shows that showed him being held in prison for an offense he claimed he was not guilty of and he yelled to the TV camera from the prison yard, "I'm innocent as charged!" Geez! And this guy was a nurse, so he was supposedly educated.
What planet do you live on, Nancy? By the way, how old are you, if you don't mind us asking.
By the way, one more thing. Although I personally think abortion should be illegal in most instances, why are you assuming that all of us think the same way on this subject? And the question of whether or not abortion is legal or illegal has no bearing whatsoever on solving the problem of men or women being forced into fatherhood or motherhood. I'm not sure why the subject of abortion was even brought up.
Dittohd
P.S. Guys, is Nancy a troll and I not smart enough to see it?
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
So far, I don't see anything that leads me to believe that nancy is a troll. If she's here for legitimate discussion, then I'm willing to engage. If she disagrees with me, so be it.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Frank, my whole point in asking my original question was to find out what other solutions there might be. I am merely trying to be educated and WANT to know the views of others. Again, I appreciate that you don't think I am a troll.
Fight Feminism With Truth Not Hate
And Justice for All
Nancy
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
As you can imagine, this is a REALLY complicated issue. The chivalrists out there seem to think that the whole C4M issue is just one of men trying to avoid their child support assessments. And the C4M guys don't help matters much by coming right out and admitting it. I wish they'd simply take a different tack and go after the whole "my body, my choice" argument that the abortionists embrace.
I happen to think the the C4M guys have a valid point, but I also don't think the view is politically marketable. Most people in the US don't have a lot of sympathy for a man who suddenly and unexpectedly becomes a father. They seem to forget that, especially now, it takes two to tango.
I think that the C4M constituency can achieve what they want by embracing the "preserve life" approach that simply says that mother AND father need to participate in decisions reproductive. They concede the notion of safe and legal abortion, but they add some moderation. There's a LOT of support for parental notification, and the courts aren't very far from recognizing father's rights, so these are achieveable goals.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
wow. In the first place, the 'fight justice with truth' was a major typo.. one I corrected in my following post. In the second, place I am no troll and absolutely take offense at being called one. Thank you Frank for at giving me the benefit of the doubt.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
I will never understand the femitwit reasoning of how a person can be charged with murder for killing a fetus by accident or otherwise but a female can kill a fetus by abortion on demand and it is not considered murder. Either a fetus is a human and thus has civil rights or it does not. It can't be both ways.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
I will never understand the femitwit reasoning of how a person can be charged with murder for killing a fetus by accident....
Mainstream (left-wing) feminism opposes these laws because they imply that a fetus can have legal rights. The law used to charge Peterson was initiated from the right. Feminists fear that a guilty verdict will strengthen the legal case of the anti-abortion crowd.
It may sound strange but I'm sure there are some influential feminists out there who want Peterson acquitted, at least on the fetal murder charge.
The guy sure acts guilty but my guess is that all the media attention is going to help him get acquitted. The guy was a fertilizer salesman and because of all the hype the best defense attorney in the country is running his case. The prosecutor is just outclassed.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Anonymous User on 09:58 PM June 3rd, 2004 EST (#11)
|
|
|
|
|
>"It can't be both ways."
Ah, But it CAN.
In the feminist utopia, that is.
Thundercloud.
"Hoka hey!"
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Anonymous User on 07:14 PM June 3rd, 2004 EST (#7)
|
|
|
|
|
For the record, does Mensactivism.org take an official position on abortion? Judging from these and other posts, it appears to take the anti position.
Amperro
"Paranoia is a Virtue"
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
I don't think MANN takes a position, but I don't want to speak for Scott, et al. I just speak for myself.
My point in writing my letter, above, is to point out that there is a third, unacknowledged position on the abortion argument that recognuzes fathers as being part of reproductive choice.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Anonymous User on 10:02 PM June 3rd, 2004 EST (#13)
|
|
|
|
|
We get all kinds, here.
Some of us are "pro-choice" others of us are "pro-life".
I don't believe an official stance has been taken. But I could be wrong. And like Frank said I don't want to speak for Scott, either.
Thundercloud.
"Hoka hey!"
A member of the "out-law gender".
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
I think we shouldn't have an official position on that or gun control or capital punishment or whatever. We'll only dilute ourselves by unintentionally weeding out those in our group who disagree with whatever official positions we take.
bg
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
I'm pro choice...but I also firmly belive that men should have the same rights as women. i.e. if women can have an abortion because she doesn't want to raise the child, the man should also have the option of severing responsibility.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Scott can correct me if I'm wrong, but I vaguely recall discussing this a while back with the other mods and it was agreed that Mensactivism should not take an official position. We will post news relating to abortion because the issue greatly impacts many men, but we generally try not to post anything to the front page on the issue which we feel is too inflammatory towards one side or the other.
|
|
|
|
|
[an error occurred while processing this directive]
