Gay Patriot Header Image

Bits & Pieces

– Why do Tim and Faith want to be “Dixie-Chicked“?

– The Religion of Peace opposes cartoons and now punishes a guy for eating cheese and uses kites as terror weapons.

– Our favorite gay Democrat prostitute lost his Texas house race, but gained 45% in the Democratic primary. PatriotPartner thinks Malin will probably “lose God” now that he has lost. Hey, maybe Jeff Gannon should run for public office?

– And this…. abortion rights for men?

A 25-year-old computer programmer is ready to file suit to block a child support order to pay for a daughter he does not want. The National Center for Men plans to use the suit to establish that men, too, can choose whether they want to become parents.

I love this idea. But I say go further. Why shouldn’t men have the right to “veto” abortions that a woman wants to do without his consent? Since 50% of the fetus comes from the man’s DNA, I think he should have just as much of a say on if the baby is born or not. I’m sure the Human Rights Campaign, the nation’s gay & abortion rights organization, will oppose my idea.

-Bruce (GayPatriot)

Share

43 Comments

  1. I don’t have a whole lot of sympathy for the “it’s my body” argument, but while I *do* and have long thought it would be fair if men were allowed a legal option to “abort”, it really is her body and forcing her to carry the baby isn’t an equal burden. If technology gave us the ability to bring the baby to term some other way, I’d agree immediately that a man should have equal legal choice to keep his fetus alive. That’s assuming post-conception choice. If she get’s a post-conception choice. So should he.

    Personally, I think that pre-conception choice is plenty of accomodation for either party if they don’t want to be responsible for a child.

    Comment by Synova — March 10, 2006 @ 1:25 am - March 10, 2006

  2. Unless the guy is able to physically carry the baby himself, then in the end its the woman’s decision. Perhaps you never noticed it, but men and women are actually physically different from each other. You can’t really make this an “equal rights” issue because they are not in fact equal to each other.

    Comment by Patrick (Gryph) — March 10, 2006 @ 2:35 am - March 10, 2006

  3. Have you ever wondered how many women are forced to have abortions because their boyfriends demanded it?

    Comment by V the K — March 10, 2006 @ 5:37 am - March 10, 2006

  4. V the K I suspect a lot of girls get abortions because other people (ie boyfriend or parents) make them feel like they don’t have any other choice.

    I don’t think the whole “it’s my body” thing should extend to being able to kill your baby in the womb, so my opinion is that neither the father or the mother should have the option to abort.

    Comment by just me — March 10, 2006 @ 6:43 am - March 10, 2006

  5. #4 — I also agree that it’s morally wrong to kill another human being for the sake of personal convenience.

    Comment by V the K — March 10, 2006 @ 7:44 am - March 10, 2006

  6. Patrick, thanks for pointing out the obvious but you miss the point raised by Bruce’s post… since the male contributes 50% of the DNA at conception, he ought to have something akin to a property interest in seeing that child, if he wants, carried to term. It’s exactly the reasoning behind forcing unwilling males to shoulder the financial burden if carried to term.

    Women should not be allowed to terminate a pregnancy, wanted or unwanted by her, without the express consent of the male –when known.

    Like with custody issues, support issues, alimony issues –our modern society needs to catch up with the realities of changing gender roles and accept that males can be nuturing, loving and as parental as females. If the female wishes to abort the child, she needs to gain the male’s consent or have a court vitiate that interest.

    Sometimes I can’t fathom how someone as socially progressive as you supposedly are, a liberal Democrat, can be so neanderthal about men’s’ rights.

    Comment by Michigan-Matt — March 10, 2006 @ 9:44 am - March 10, 2006

  7. I’m in the middle on this issue. I find the act of abortion morally deplorable, but from a legal standpoint, I think it comes down to viability. That’s why I’m against late term abortions.

    But having said that, as long as women have all the power, they should bear all the responsibility. Right now a mom can kill the child, and be forever free of the responsibilities of that child. As long as abortion is legal and the sole decision of the mother, the father needs to have one opportunity upon discovery of the child to legally absolve himself of any responsibility. By doing so, he would of course relinquish all parental rights as well.

    Comment by Dale in L.A. — March 10, 2006 @ 11:17 am - March 10, 2006

  8. “Women should not be allowed to terminate a pregnancy, wanted or unwanted by her, without the express consent of the male –when known.”

    And they should wear the burka too.

    Comment by hank — March 10, 2006 @ 12:06 pm - March 10, 2006

  9. #7 — Your opinion is at odds with that of a certain butchdyke California legislator who thinks men should be forced to pay child support even when DNA testing proves they are not the father of the child in question. (But I’m sure it’s not because she just, you know, hates men or anything).

    Comment by V the K — March 10, 2006 @ 12:51 pm - March 10, 2006

  10. I’ve always felt that there was something inherrently unfair the system in which women have the complete choice about how we want to deal with an unwanted pregnancy (that women can choose to ‘get out’ of responsibility) and men have no choice.

    That being said, women are the ones who are in the more difficult position with the pregnancy happening in the woman’s body and the law should reflect that (an unmarried woman, carrying to term a child she doesn’t want, even if she gives up her rights and responsibilities immediately after birth, is much more involved than a man who signs a piece of paper with his decision).

    Of course, any change in this would have many unintended consequences: either more women being ‘forced’ to have abortions (have you ever seen the stats on how high that number is already) or else more children growing up in poverty (lack of a responsible father is like the number one cause of childhood poverty). Oh, and given that women are more pro-life than men, I doubt that we would see any decrease in abortions, no matter how the law would be written.

    Comment by DinaFelice — March 10, 2006 @ 1:40 pm - March 10, 2006

  11. #8 It’s got nothing to do with a burka, hank. It has to do with how we view parental responsibility.

    Allowing fathers to “abort” would not be a good thing at all, but it would be *fair*.

    I agree that women have a greater burden in *not* having an abortion, but if a man can be forced to support children he doesn’t want, it is also arguably *fair* that a woman should be forced to support children she doesn’t want.

    What’s good for the goose, ought to be considered good for the gander.

    In fact, it’s equally bad.

    Still, men are given a very bizarre and disjointed message about fatherhood by the present “it’s her body and her choice” doctrine. It’s just not possible to coherently insist that fathers have duties and obligations but women have 100% of the choice. It’s up to them if they maintain a pregnancy. It’s up to them if they end a pregnancy. The father has no legal say whatsoever, yet he has a legal obligation and socieity will hold him to that.

    Okay, I know it’s not *common* but in another comment thread about this someone mentioned his stepsister who deliberately get’s pregnant and then gives the father a payout choice… one payment for abortion, or else the state mandated child support. The ability to legally “abort” would allow any father the same option to divest himself of future obligation as women now have.

    It would be *fair*.

    Comment by Synova — March 10, 2006 @ 2:03 pm - March 10, 2006

  12. hank at #8… LOL. You are a crackup, girl. NO, President Bush’s leadership and the American military’s success in Afghanistan eliminated the need for women to continue to wear burqua –unless they wish to do so.

    And, before raj-the-corrector-extraordinaire chimes in, the generally agreed distinction between your use of the work burka –which is an ancient lambswool coat– is different than burqa –which is that top of the head to tips of the toe garmets and veil worn to maintain feminine modesty.

    Comment by Michigan-Matt — March 10, 2006 @ 3:06 pm - March 10, 2006

  13. But having said that, as long as women have all the power, they should bear all the responsibility.

    Game!

    Comment by rightwingprof — March 10, 2006 @ 5:02 pm - March 10, 2006

  14. Thanks Matt. I stand corrected on the spelling. Other than that. I think you’re a misogynist.
    I don’t think a man has a right to tell a women what she can and can’t do with her womb.

    Comment by hank — March 10, 2006 @ 7:17 pm - March 10, 2006

  15. I agree, hank. A man shouldn’t have the right to force a woman to bear children. She should have control over her womb. The issue is at what point *anyone* has to make those decisions. Men can only chose to reproduce or not before they do so. Women, as it stands, can chose to reproduce or not *after* they do so.

    Men, whom we presumably insist are responsible for their choice or lack of chosing before conception, are supposed to love and support the children they have while *simutaneously* not give a d*mn about their children who are aborted.

    They are supposed to turn on their parental feelings if a woman decides to keep a child, pay child support, be a father and not a “dead beat dad.”

    If a woman decides to have an abortion, well then, men are supposed to be unmoved, uncaring… loving that fetus or wanting the child who will result makes them misogynists or worse.

    What about that makes sense, hank?

    Comment by Synova — March 10, 2006 @ 11:45 pm - March 10, 2006

  16. I don’t think a man has a right to tell a women what she can and can’t do with her womb.

    Then a woman should have no right to compel a man to support in any way, shape, or fashion the product of her use of her womb.

    Comment by North Dallas Thirty — March 11, 2006 @ 1:10 am - March 11, 2006

  17. 16
    I agree in a way. I
    Look ata it this way.
    The couple are 16 years old. She gets pregnant. He begs her to terminate the pregnancy. She refuses. T

    Comment by hank — March 11, 2006 @ 6:39 am - March 11, 2006

  18. Sorry…
    THEN she has no right to compel him to support the baby.

    Of course, if there were better sex educaztion, these kids would know that it’s easy to protect yourself, and not get pregnant.

    Comment by hank — March 11, 2006 @ 6:43 am - March 11, 2006

  19. 15
    Actually, it doesn’t make sense.

    Comment by hank — March 11, 2006 @ 6:45 am - March 11, 2006

  20. 17: You left out one little step in your formula, right before the “she gets pregnant” line: “They both have unprotected sex with each other”. Unless she’s conceived the next savior, she didn’t get pregnant all by herself.

    And exactly how does Bruce plan to have men prevent a woman from having an abortion? Do we tie her down, put her in prison, house arrest throughout the term of her pregnancy? Or how about this little scenario: A rapist discovers he’s impregnated a woman who he violently attacked and demands his parental rights and forces a woman to not have an abortion. That’s a charming little situation, don’t you think?

    I’m tired of people, especially men, intruding on such a personal issue. It’s a woman’s body, it’s her right to choose whether to end her pregnancy or not, period, end of story. If that computer programmer didn’t want the possibility of conceiving, then HE should have worn a condom or, better yet, not had sex (let alone unprotected sex) with her. You’re responsible in the end for controlling your own procreation in the end, not your sexual partner. Everyone I know (including myself) who advocates a woman’s right to choose does not gleefully support abortion. It’s just a real world fact that a number of pregnancies in this world are unwanted, with reasons far beyond being inconvenient, as anti-women advocates love to contend.

    How interesting it would be if men could get pregnant. I suspect that abortion would then be a sacrament protected by law.

    Comment by Kevin — March 11, 2006 @ 7:09 am - March 11, 2006

  21. Exactly Kevin
    That’s what I meant in 18
    why not protect yourself and your partner?

    “EDUAZION” is cute but I meant ‘education”.

    Comment by hank — March 11, 2006 @ 8:11 am - March 11, 2006

  22. The commitment level of large numbers of men towards children negates some of this male “anguish” at not having a say. Too many deadbeat dads in this country and too many men who are quite grateful that their wives/girlfriends have abortions to take this power away from women. Don’t have sex with a woman you can’t trust. If you do, except the consequences.

    Comment by VinceTN — March 11, 2006 @ 11:15 am - March 11, 2006

  23. 20

    Kevin, I have news for you.

    MEN are MORE pro-CHOICE than women.
    WOMEN are MORE pro-LIFE than men.

    Stop treating the issue as a gender war issue where evil men are trying to assert their control over poor oppressed women. That just isn’t the situation.

    Men tend to be more pro-choice because exactly because they do NOT want to assert control over women.

    Based on surveys where women explain their more pro-life positions on statements like “it is a living being inside of me”, I think that if men could have children, more of them would be more pro-life and there would be more restrictions on abortions.

    Comment by DinaFelice — March 11, 2006 @ 11:57 am - March 11, 2006

  24. I’m surprised nobody wanted to comment about Tom Malin and if he’s going to ditch God since he lost his primary race.

    Regards,
    Peter Hughes

    Comment by Peter Hughes — March 11, 2006 @ 12:08 pm - March 11, 2006

  25. I respect people who are anti-abortion. Don’t have one.

    Comment by hank — March 11, 2006 @ 12:43 pm - March 11, 2006

  26. And exactly how does Bruce plan to have men prevent a woman from having an abortion? Do we tie her down, put her in prison, house arrest throughout the term of her pregnancy?

    Then, by that logic, since we can’t stop everyone from murdering each other, we should abolish murder laws.

    Or how about this little scenario: A rapist discovers he’s impregnated a woman who he violently attacked and demands his parental rights and forces a woman to not have an abortion. That’s a charming little situation, don’t you think?

    Comparing consensual sex to nonconsensual sex is inane. Rape is a violent crime, and violent criminals are generally not allowed to assert parental rights. She can go to court and have them terminated, and she’s got a mountain of evidence on her side.

    It’s just a real world fact that a number of pregnancies in this world are unwanted, with reasons far beyond being inconvenient, as anti-women advocates love to contend.

    Hate to burst your bubble, kev, but statistics show that less than 5% of the abortions in this country are performed for rape, incest, or to save the life of the mother.

    The rest are performed for reasons that the woman knew prior to having sex.

    And here’s the double standard that abortion-pushers like you have, Kevin:

    If that computer programmer didn’t want the possibility of conceiving, then HE should have worn a condom or, better yet, not had sex (let alone unprotected sex) with her. You’re responsible in the end for controlling your own procreation in the end, not your sexual partner.

    So let’s see….when the MAN does it, it’s “he should have known better than to have unprotected sex, so he should bear the consequences”. But when the WOMAN does it, she doesn’t HAVE to bear the consequences.

    Everyone I know (including myself) who advocates a woman’s right to choose does not gleefully support abortion.

    Why not? You insist it’s not a human life, but just a “tumor”, or “growth”, or “virus”. Do you expect us to believe that people like you who spend so much time denying that that’s a baby in there have any moral qualms whatsoever about abortion?

    Comment by North Dallas Thirty — March 11, 2006 @ 2:15 pm - March 11, 2006

  27. 23: Great. Well, like someone else said, if you’re against abortion then don’t have one and leave everyone else alone about.

    26: Then why did South Dakota just pass a law banning abortion in all cases, excepting only a life threatening situation for the mother. Incidences of rape/incest are not allowable incidences of that law.

    I dont’ think it’s a double-standard. It takes 2 to get pregnant and both are culpable. it’s similar to the sitation of getting an STD. If your partner just says they don’t have an STD and you simply take him/her at their word without protecting yourself, you’re stupid. If this guy wanted to be sure he didn’t impregnate her, then he should have worn a condom or had a vasectomy. Either that, or he should have had some sort of legal agreement about parental issues before they had sex.

    Besides, it seems to me that conservatives should be happy with abortions. i mean, if more women had abortions, wouldn’t there be much less of a burden on the federal budget?

    Comment by Kevin — March 11, 2006 @ 6:52 pm - March 11, 2006

  28. The Christofascists are more interested in the “preborn”, than in a living child.

    http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/03/10/AR2006031001997.html

    http://www.mndaily.com/articles/2006/03/07/67498

    And once the fatherless, unwanted kid turns to a life of crime, these womb-controllers, will happily invoke the death penalty.

    Comment by hank — March 11, 2006 @ 9:55 pm - March 11, 2006

  29. Oh hank, that’s hilarious.

    And once the fatherless, unwanted kid turns to a life of crime, these womb-controllers, will happily invoke the death penalty.

    And there’s the difference between pro-abortion liberals and pro-life conservatives.

    Conservatives believe in executing the child AFTER s/he commits a crime.

    Liberals believe in executing the child before it gets the chance to commit a crime, based on their prediction that it will because of its parents’ race/socioeconomic status.

    The Christofascists are more interested in the “preborn”, than in a living child.

    Let’s see, who opposes No Child Left Behind? Oh, that’s right, teachers — the ones who say it’s preventing them from teaching “necessary information”.

    Like Jay Bennish’s hate-filled rants.

    Make up your mind, hank; do you support education of students, or do you support the leftist teachers’ unions who want to teach irrelevant subjects and get rid of the tests and scoring that catch them doing so and expose their incompetence?

    Comment by North Dallas Thirty — March 13, 2006 @ 4:41 pm - March 13, 2006

  30. Kevin at #27 “Besides, it seems to me that conservatives should be happy with abortions. i mean, if more women had abortions, wouldn’t there be much less of a burden on the federal budget?”

    See, there ya go again Kevin. For most conservatives abortion isn’t about impacting the federal budget… it’s about the life of the unborn child, the moral implications of abortion on demand to society, and the failure of society to protect the most vulnerable segment in our community.

    I think you knew that already. You were just being glib, cynical, and disingenuious all at once. I thought only hank could do that triple Liberal feat.

    And hank, “Christofascists”? Are you really that far up the ass of the Democrat GayLeft not to be able to realize how stupid that sounds?

    Christofascists? Let me guess? You’re an atheist along with the whole anti-America, anti-business, anti-GOP, anti-conservative, anti-Life Democrat/GayLeft/Unionized Educator waltz boi…. I hope God wipes that smirk off your face right before she sends your sorry ass to Hell for an eternity. You deserve nothing less.

    Comment by Michigan-Matt — March 13, 2006 @ 4:47 pm - March 13, 2006

  31. 29
    Glad you think it’s funny. I don’t
    NOBODY is “pro-abortion. Got it? NOBODY.

    “Christofascists? Let me guess? You’re an atheist along with the whole anti-America, anti-business, anti-GOP, anti-conservative, anti-Life Democrat/GayLeft/Unionized Educator waltz boi…. I hope God wipes that smirk off your face right before she sends your sorry ass to Hell for an eternity. You deserve nothing less.”

    Mitch, You have no idea who or what i am. And if that’s the kind rhetoric you have to stoop to. Then you’re dumber that I thought. And I’ve always thought you were dumb as dirt.

    Comment by hank — March 13, 2006 @ 6:29 pm - March 13, 2006

  32. Glad you think it’s funny. I don’t
    NOBODY is “pro-abortion. Got it? NOBODY.

    Oh, I do; I think it’s hilarious that you liberals whine about imposing the death penalty on criminals AFTER they commit a crime, but argue that babies should be killed BEFORE they commit a crime on the logic that “well, they will eventually”.

    And of course you’re pro-abortion, hank. Why wouldn’t you be? According to you it lowers crime by getting rid of those “undesirables”, and besides — it’s nothing more than a virus or a tumor in a woman’s body. Why should ANYONE be against getting rid of that?

    Comment by North Dallas Thirty — March 14, 2006 @ 1:30 am - March 14, 2006

  33. You are out of your mind. I am NOT pro-abortion, and I not for the death penalty. You can try and twist everything to suit you, but it won’t work.

    I never said anything about “undesirables”,a “virus’, or a ‘tumor”.

    You are sad creature.

    Comment by hank — March 14, 2006 @ 2:16 am - March 14, 2006

  34. hank at #31 & 33 “Mitch, You have no idea who or what i am. And if that’s the kind rhetoric you have to stoop to. Then you’re dumber that I thought. And I’ve always thought you were dumb as dirt.”

    Those skreetching noises I heard across the blogsphere were YOUR comments, hank?

    It’s Matt, first off. Not Mitch. You need to learn the fine art of reading and comprehension.

    And, second, you’re starting to sound more like Ridor everyday, hank… and spelling like him too. I think you need a little vacation from trying to pass as an “old fashioned conservative” –like you’ve been trying to do in the recent past.

    You really are deep up the ass of Democrats and you haven’t got a clue.

    Comment by Michigan-Matt — March 14, 2006 @ 9:51 am - March 14, 2006

  35. You’re an imbecile Matt Mitch. I’ve said it before. You don’t know what you’re talkiong about.

    Comment by hank — March 14, 2006 @ 11:35 am - March 14, 2006

  36. TALKING.

    Comment by hank — March 14, 2006 @ 12:26 pm - March 14, 2006

  37. I never said anything about “undesirables”,a “virus’, or a ‘tumor”.

    Then what IS that thing growing inside the woman’s body, hank?

    All I want you to do is to say that it’s a human life, but it’s perfectly OK to murder it for the mother’s convenience. That’s all.

    Comment by North Dallas Thirty — March 14, 2006 @ 12:35 pm - March 14, 2006

  38. I thought that you were “pro-choice”.

    Is it a human life? A clump of cells called a “zygote”, to me is not yet a human life. The argument is far too complex for a place like this,and will no doubt be debated for ages by better minds than ours.

    I don’t know at what point the ‘soul” enters the body, but if you think that a zygote is a human being, then are all the other zygotes, which don’t manage to attach themselves to the wall, human beings also?

    If so, is the mother “murdering” all the other fertilized eggs, when she flushes them ? You do know this happens don’t you?

    See what I mean? It’s too vast and deep to be solved here by us.

    I can’t imagine what a woman must feel, when she’s faced with such a terrible decision. And usually now days the father is gone. But I do think that it’s her choice. That’s all. I support your right to be anti-choice. If you don’t want to have a abortion , don’t have one.

    Comment by hank — March 14, 2006 @ 1:52 pm - March 14, 2006

  39. hank at #35, “You’re an imbecile Matt Mitch. I’ve said it before. You don’t know what you’re talkiong about.”

    oh sure you do hank… come on, you’re little angry Democrat voter wanting to indict all Christians with the Fred Phelps guilt-by-association even though Phelps is Democrat first, white trash second, and a political radical third –three things he has in common with you and other angry Democrat voters.

    I still think you need to take some time and read beyond the Wiki sites, KOS-isms and playing AmenChorus to Stephen’s rants. I say, you should begin with a good Russell Kirk or George Weigel book –there are many, anyone would help you along to enlightenment.

    Can’t do it? Try Elliot Richardson’s last book then … he was a progressive moderate American policy leader –and double benefit for you, he was an internationalist too.

    Comment by Michigan-Matt — March 14, 2006 @ 2:10 pm - March 14, 2006

  40. ” you’re little angry Democrat voter”.
    “And, second, you’re starting to sound more like Ridor everyday, hank… and spelling like him too.”

    Says the pot.

    Comment by hank — March 14, 2006 @ 2:38 pm - March 14, 2006

  41. If so, is the mother “murdering” all the other fertilized eggs, when she flushes them ? You do know this happens don’t you?

    If she is encouraging her body to get rid of them, yes. But in most cases, that isn’t what’s happening.

    And actually hank, the argument is not complex at all. If a woman gets pregnant, that qualifies as a human life. If an egg is fertilized, that qualifies as a human life.

    Comment by North Dallas Thirty — March 15, 2006 @ 11:54 am - March 15, 2006

  42. To you. Not to me. Not to alot of people. Again, if you don’t want to have an abortion, don’t have one.

    Comment by hank — March 15, 2006 @ 1:58 pm - March 15, 2006

  43. Alright, I’ll ask you the tired question then. If while you were in a fertility clinic, there was a fire, and you could only save a petri dish with 5 fertilized eggs, or a living 2 yearold child, which would you choose?

    Comment by hank — March 15, 2006 @ 2:37 pm - March 15, 2006

RSS feed for comments on this post.

Sorry, the comment form is closed at this time.