Contributor Post Created with Sketch. Roe v Wade and the Rights of the Father

 

January 22 marks a contemptible day in American history.  On this day in 1973 a divided Supreme Court issued a spurious decision that led to the deaths so far of 50 million innocent Americans, now claiming more lives than Chairman Mao Tse-Tung’s “Great Leap Forward.” The consequence of Harry Blackmun’s announcement of a new government policy outstrips all 20th century European dictators combined in death toll. 

Current Supreme Court Justice Ruth Bader Ginsberg long ago made a statement about the “right” that was being protected and in so doing opened up the soft underbelly of the Roe decision. With the appropriate court case, an attack could be led to end the American holocaust.  Here is what Ruth Bader Ginsburg said in 1974:

The emphasis must not be on the right to abortion, but on the right to privacy and reproductive control.

Justice Ginsburg thwarts the deceptive and preposterous argument that declares because women hold our children in their womb and only women can physically abort (kill) the child, abortion is therefore an issue saved for women alone.  While “abortion” can’t be equalized, Ginsburg rightly points out that abortion was not the right being protected.  “Reproductive control” is being protected, and that most certainly can be equalized between men and women under the law.

Look at the actual language Justice Blackmun penned in Roe wherein he described what exactly outweighed the Texas Law protecting the baby, and note it was NOT a right to an abortion procedure.  It was this:

Maternity, or additional offspring, may force upon the woman a distressful life and future. Psychological harm may be imminent. Mental and physical health may be taxed by child care. There is also the distress, for all concerned, associated with the unwanted child, and there is the problem of bringing a child into a family already unable, psychologically and otherwise, to care for it. In other cases, as in this one, the additional difficulties and continuing stigma of unwed motherhood may be involved.

To solidify this point Justice Stewart in his concurring opinion described the right which outweighed the Texas statute which sought to protect the baby as follows:

That right necessarily includes the right of a woman to decide whether or not to terminate her pregnancy. “Certainly the interests of a woman in giving of her physical and emotional self during pregnancy and the interests that will be affected throughout her life by the birth and raising of a child are of a far greater degree of significance and personal intimacy than the right to send a child to private school protected in Pierce v. Society of Sisters, 268 U.S. 510 (1925), or the right to teach a foreign language protected in Meyer v. Nebraska, 262 U.S. 390 (1923).” Abele v. Markle, 351 F. Supp. 224, 227 (Conn. 1972).

Let us then summarize the rights actually protected by the Roe decision, noting again it was not a right to an abortion procedure (abortion is only the tool allowed to be used to further the following interests of the woman).  Here are the eight [8] legally acceptable reasons for allowing a woman to relieve herself from parental obligation, any of which now outweigh the life of the baby under American law:

  1. A woman may find parenting to presently cause her distress.
  2. A woman my find parenting to potentially cause her distress in the future.
  3. A woman may be caused psychological harm now by parenting.
  4. A woman may find child care taxing mentally and physically.
  5. A woman may suffer stress because she does not want a child.
  6. A woman may find her and her family psychologically unable to care for the child.
  7. A woman may find her and her family are “otherwise” unable to care for the child.
  8. A woman my want to avoid the stigma of unwed motherhood.

These are the things being protected in American law, not abortion itself.  They are, to say the least, homage to selfishness. But they are the law; the “rights” which outweigh a baby’s life.

Yet therein we find the best legal challenge. While a man can’t have an abortion procedure, he certainly can fit into any of the eight categories described above.  If those are the rights being protected, then those rights can be equalized. Under equal protection jurisprudence, if they can be equalized, they must be.

Note that currently “reproductive rights” are not just imbalanced between men and women; rather for men they are nonexistent.  In 2009 I wrote a column called “Roe v Wade and the Rights of the Father” wherein I describe the legal case needed to equalize reproductive rights between the sexes.  I call it a “Father’s Abortion” (no – it does not require the women to abort their child).  The challenge however will assert, based upon equal protection principles, the equalization under law of a man’s reproductive control currently afforded to women, using precisely the same arguments made in Roe v Wade as cited above.

The father will seek a ruling from the court, one that is routinely granted in courtrooms today, often against a man’s will, regarding his born children:  The termination of his parental rights and obligations.  This will leave the women to decide if she wishes to go it alone and have the child, or to have an abortion.

Please note that if the case were to prevail I personally would find the result abhorrent and inconsistent with morality concerning good fatherhood.  However, the only way to finally awaken the pro-death adherents of abortion is to impose ourselves upon them, by asserting the same claim of rights that they have been imposing on the rest of us for the past 39 years.  Only then will the obvious madness of it all be laid before them in such light to make any denial of it unbelievable.

Some may argue that the Courts will never let fathers unilaterally decide not to be fathers the way Roe has allowed it for mothers. What those people don’t know is that 49 states and Puerto Rico already allow new fathers to do so after the child is born, in what are known as Safe Haven Laws. Like it or not, the cultural shift away from parental responsibility is cemented now in both federal and state law.

The only difference between the result of the lawsuit I propose and the Safe Haven Laws is that the mother will be notified before the child is born that the father is foregoing all parental rights and responsibilities, thus the term “father’s abortion.”

When I first proposed this back in 2009, thanks to the editors at FoxNews.com who printed it, the column got enormous attention and was reprinted in a variety of online media (where is SOPA and PIPA when you need them?).  I jest.  I was happy it was getting attention.

Here is what I didn’t expect:   I was overwhelmed with emails from men who suffered, and suffered greatly, from having their children killed by mothers who refused to carry their children to term.  It was not my intention to bring their issue to the forefront, but it came.

I was emotionally moved to tears reading of their plight.  They are so helpless.  They are so lost in the conversation. The court focuses only on what harm might come to a women for being a mother, but won’t consider for a moment the harm that comes to a man when his child is killed.  The media will not address him.  Instead of programs that focus on his psychological devastation from his child being killed, media will only run stories claiming that the women behind abortions are somehow civil rights heroes.

These men tried everything:  Court injunctions, offers to let the mother have no parental or financial responsibility, offers of ransom money in exchange for their child’s life and more.  Yet they are powerless, held to the whims of a mother who, often for selfish reasons, wishes not to be one.

There is the story of one man I will never forget.  I don’t even know his name.  Someone reprinted my column on Free Republic, and in response he left this poem he wrote for his dead son. It was written in 1973, so this boy was one of the first victims of the American killing of innocents.  It is the rawest, most real and chilling poem I’ve read.  It is so compelling not because it is out of the ordinary, but because it is the common exemplar of what is happening to men and children since Roe v Wade:

I’ve got a son that never came.

One that flew kites and arrow-planes.

One that danced in the springtime rains.

Don’t know why or who’s to blame.

But I’ve got a son that never came.

 

Bullfrogs and butterflies he’ll never see.

He’ll stroll through an open field, but not with me.

There was a time his heartbeat strong.

It beat with rhythm as in a song.

And to me his love belonged.

Don’t know why or what went wrong.

But there was a time his heartbeat strong.

 

It’s left in my mind and my heart will tease.

There’s no love in my life for my son and me.

Before I had a chance to fight.

They took my son up a flight.

To a room to take his life

Don’t know why I had no rights.

Before I had a chance to fight.

 

Then five months early they stole him from his womb.

Laid him in a corner and watched him die in his tomb.

But for one split second I thought I heard him cry…

“I’m gonna have to leave you now. I love you Dad. Goodbye.”

There are 46 comments.

  1. 1
  2. 2
  1. CB Toder aka Mama Toad Member
    Stephen Bishop: A 24 week old fetus is about 12 inches long. · 5 minutes ago

    Edited 4 minutes ago

    And looks like this:

    week24-lanugo.jpg

    • #1
    • January 23, 2012, at 1:00 AM PST
    • Like
  2. r r Inactive
    r r

    Great post, Tommy.

    What a dark time for our country. I hope we can turn things around before it’s too late.

    • #2
    • January 23, 2012, at 1:01 AM PST
    • Like
  3. Nobody's Perfect Inactive

    Noesis Noeseos

    That Blackmun person not only enabled mass homicide

    Whatever one’s views on abortion, that sort of careless invective is hardly helpful in trying to persuade people – particularly women – who might be uncertain about the issue.

    There are millions of people out there who have had abortions or who have family members who have done so. One sure way to alienate them is to refer to them as murderers.

    • #3
    • January 23, 2012, at 1:32 AM PST
    • Like
  4. Tommy De Seno Contributor
    Tommy De Seno Post author
    Nobody’s Perfect: Noesis Noeseos

    That Blackmun person not only enabled mass homicide

    Whatever one’s views on abortion, that sort of careless invective is hardly helpful in trying to persuade people – particularly women – who might be uncertain about the issue.

    There are millions of people out there who have had abortions or who have family members who have done so. One sure way to alienate them is to refer to them as murderers. · 4 minutes ago

    “Murder” is defined by a statute with specfic elements. It is legal, not scientific,

    “Homicide” is the act of one human killing another. The term is scientific, not legal.

    All murders are homicides. Not all homicides are murders (even in the law: see justifiable homicide).

    All abortions under current law are not murder as the statutes define murder.

    All abortions are homicide as science defines homicide.

    Sorry if hearing the word makes anyone uncomfortable. The baby was made more uncomfortable.

    • #4
    • January 23, 2012, at 1:41 AM PST
    • Like
  5. Noesis Noeseos Inactive
    Nobody’s Perfect: Noesis Noeseos

    That Blackmun person not only enabled mass homicide

    Whatever one’s views on abortion, that sort of careless invective is hardly helpful in trying to persuade people – particularly women – who might be uncertain about the issue.

    There are millions of people out there who have had abortions or who have family members who have done so. One sure way to alienate them is to refer to them as murderers. · 14 minutes ago

    But I didn’t refer to them as murderers, did I? I was a little more careful than that. You will pardon me, but I am not convinced that persuasion and the avoidance of alienation are the central issues. Besides, what could be more alienating than death? Personal inconvenience?

    • #5
    • January 23, 2012, at 1:51 AM PST
    • Like
  6. Nobody's Perfect Inactive

    Well, since there is no such word as homiciders…

    And, let’s face facts: when most people hear the word homicide, they think murder.

    • #6
    • January 23, 2012, at 1:58 AM PST
    • Like
  7. Tommy De Seno Contributor
    Tommy De Seno Post author
    Noesis Noeseos

    But I didn’t refer to them as murderers, did I? I was a little more careful than that. You will pardon me, but I am not convinced that persuasion and the avoidance of alienation are the central issues. Besides, what could be more alienating than death? Personal inconvenience? · 2 minutes ago

    Agreed 100%. The sanitization of language is a big part of what made this horror as socially acceptable as it has become.

    Homicide or infanticide became “abortion” and abortion became “the right to choose.” Suddenly, a killing is masked by renaming it into an exercise of a civil right.

    I share fault for letting it happen. It is high time we start making those involved in killing children describe the act they do instead of avoiding the description.

    • #7
    • January 23, 2012, at 2:00 AM PST
    • Like
  8. Tommy De Seno Contributor
    Tommy De Seno Post author
    Nobody’s Perfect: Well, since there is no such word as homiciders…

    Killers.

    • #8
    • January 23, 2012, at 2:02 AM PST
    • Like
  9. Noesis Noeseos Inactive
    Nobody’s Perfect: Well, since there is no such word as homiciders…

    And, let’s face facts: when most people hear the word homicide, they think murder. · 5 minutes ago

    This is a rebuttal? Well, if “most people” would be a little less “careless,” perhaps there would not be so much mindless destruction.

    • #9
    • January 23, 2012, at 2:08 AM PST
    • Like
  10. Anon Inactive

    One might very well say that the physiological differences between men and women, and the different emotional burdens attached to each, is plainly unfair. I would agree; from my perspective, women have a much more difficult life and far greater burdens to bear (no pun here), including but certainly not limited to childbearing and child nurturing. But that’s the way it worked out; it’s who we are.

    So, yes, it’s not fair. But, irrespective of imagined penumbras, that cannot abrogate the responsibility to honor human life, and the direct responsibility for that when it comes to reproduction, is the woman’s, fair or not.

    We speak of abortions statistically, as though considering the number of deer killed in a hunting season. We have become inured to the action and consequences of terminating a human pregnancy; just a bit of suction, or curettage, or forceps, and it’s over and done with – let’s get on with our lives.

    But we have learned to forget what has ended and how, and, more telling, we forget to shudder.

    • #10
    • January 23, 2012, at 2:13 AM PST
    • Like
  11. Nobody's Perfect Inactive

    I am simply saying that, since 80% of the American public consistently supports the right to abortion under some circumstances, it might be wise to temper one’s rhetoric if one hopes to bring them around to your view.

    Just as the Left isn’t gonna bring me around to their side by screeching about racism or the heartlessness of people who don’t want to be taxed to death on behalf of the poor, pro-life advocates aren’t going to persuade people to their side by the use of intemperate rhetoric.

    • #11
    • January 23, 2012, at 2:14 AM PST
    • Like
  12. Ben Domenech Contributor

    Thank you for posting this, Tommy.

    I’d also commend to you Frederica Matthewes-Green from today.

    • #12
    • January 23, 2012, at 2:15 AM PST
    • 1 like
  13. Mel Foil Inactive

    One of those stories (about 33 minutes into the show):

    Life on the Rock- 1 19 12 – Vicki Thorn & Jason Jones – Project Rachelhttp://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1-aJSPCpft8

    Image9.jpg

    • #13
    • January 23, 2012, at 2:18 AM PST
    • Like
  14. Tommy De Seno Contributor
    Tommy De Seno Post author
    Nobody’s Perfect: I am simply saying that, since 80% of the American public consistently supports the right to abortion under some circumstances, it might be wise to temper one’s rhetoric if one hopes to bring them around to your view.

    Just as the Left isn’t gonna bring me around to their side by screeching about racism or the heartlessness of people who don’t want to be taxed to death on behalf of the poor, pro-life advocates aren’t going to persuade people to their side by the use of intemperate rhetoric. · 0 minutes ago

    Using the scientific terms is not intemperate.

    Also, your premise is incorrect. When we start people thinking in terms of a human baby being killed instead of a mother exercising a civil right, we will persuade more people, not alienate them.

    • #14
    • January 23, 2012, at 2:19 AM PST
    • Like
  15. CB Toder aka Mama Toad Member
    Nobody’s Perfect: Well, since there is no such word as homiciders…

    And, let’s face facts: when most people hear the word homicide, they think murder. · 30 minutes ago

    And when most people hear the words “women’s right to choose” and “reproductive health” they don’t think of the millions of dead and the millions more suffering… but they should.

    • #15
    • January 23, 2012, at 2:31 AM PST
    • Like
  16. Noesis Noeseos Inactive
    Nobody’s Perfect: I am simply saying that …

    Just as the Left isn’t gonna bring me around to their side by screeching about racism or the heartlessness of people who don’t want to be taxed to death on behalf of the poor, pro-life advocates aren’t going to persuade people to their side by the use of intemperate rhetoric. · 7 minutes ago

    It’s a sad day when calling the deliberate termination of a human life “homicide” is considered intemperate. One wonders at the contortions of self-delusion people who defend the practice will adopt to insulate themselves against the plain meaning of words. It seems the same thing has happened in many areas of constitutional law these last decades. How’s that working out for the country?

    • #16
    • January 23, 2012, at 2:37 AM PST
    • 1 like
  17. Tommy De Seno Contributor
    Tommy De Seno Post author

    To show that words matter, take a look at how President Obama today avoids the issue of a baby being killed and frames the whole issue in terms of a civil right, and even speaks of protecting a woman being able to achieve her dreams, which I guess means a woman with a child can not (recall he once referred to having a child as a punishment):

    As we mark the 39th

    anniversary of Roe v. Wade, we must remember that this Supreme Court decision not only protects a woman’s health and reproductive freedom, but also affirms a broader principle: that government should not intrude on private family matters. I remain committed to protecting a woman’s right to choose and this fundamental constitutional right. While this is a sensitive and often divisive issue- no matter what our views, we must stay united in our determination to prevent unintended pregnancies, support pregnant woman and mothers, reduce the need for abortion, encourage healthy relationships, and promote adoption. And as we remember this historic anniversary, we must also continue our efforts to ensure that our daughters have the same rights, freedoms, and opportunities as our sons to fulfill their dreams.

    • #17
    • January 23, 2012, at 2:57 AM PST
    • Like
  18. Noesis Noeseos Inactive
    Tommy De Seno: To show that words matter, take a look at how President Obama today avoids the issue of a baby being killed and frames the whole issue in terms of a civil right…

    As we mark the 39th

    anniversary of Roe v. Wade, we must remember that this Supreme Court decision not only protects a woman’s health and reproductive freedom, but also affirms a broader principle: that government should not intrude on private family matters. I remain committed to protecting a woman’s right to choose and this fundamental constitutional right. While this is a sensitive and often divisive issue- no matter what our views, we must stay united in our determination to prevent unintended pregnancies, support pregnant woman and mothers, reduce the need for abortion, encourage healthy relationships, and promote adoption. And as we remember this historic anniversary, we must also continue our efforts to ensure that our daughters have the same rights, freedoms, and opportunities as our sons to fulfill their dreams.

    11 minutes ago

    “Hypocrisy is the homage vice pays to virtue.”Francois de La Rochefoucauld
    • #18
    • January 23, 2012, at 3:16 AM PST
    • Like
  19. raycon and lindacon Inactive
    Nobody’s Perfect: I am simply saying that, since 80% of the American public consistently supports the right to abortion under some circumstances, it might be wise to temper one’s rhetoric if one hopes to bring them around to your view.

    Just as the Left isn’t gonna bring me around to their side by screeching about racism or the heartlessness of people who don’t want to be taxed to death on behalf of the poor, pro-life advocates aren’t going to persuade people to their side by the use of intemperate rhetoric. · 1 hour ago

    A significant majority of the population of Germany considered Jews to be untermenchen, to be shipped off to “other” places.

    A significant part of the American population considered black people sub-human, to be harnessed like oxen to servitude.

    A significant part of any population CAN BE WRONG. Ain’t democracy grand.

    It took courage to look into the faces of the deliberately wrong, to call a sin a sin, and to allow no softening of the horror that they were doing.

    Infanticide is what it is… the killing of an infant. Do it soon enough and it’s abortion.

    • #19
    • January 23, 2012, at 3:40 AM PST
    • 1 like
  20. Nobody's Perfect Inactive

    I can respect the views of some here that abortion is homicide. As for me, I’m agnostic – I just wish we could go back to the days when the people of each State made the decision, rather than the Supreme Court.

    But ask yourselves this: suppose you were at a social gathering, talking to a woman who you knew had had an abortion. Would you smile and politely call her a “baby killer”? Of course not.

    But when it comes to an entire class of people you don’t have to deal with face-to-face, well, that’s another matter.

    • #20
    • January 23, 2012, at 3:47 AM PST
    • Like
  21. CB Toder aka Mama Toad Member
    Nobody’s Perfect:

    But ask yourselves this: suppose you were at a social gathering, talking to a woman who you knew had had an abortion. Would you smile and politely call her a “baby killer”? Of course not.

    But when it comes to an entire class of people you don’t have to deal with face-to-face, well, that’s another matter. · 0 minutes ago

    I know many women and men who have aborted their children. No, I do not call them, “Baby Killer!” because you are right, it is hurtful. But it would be true. If she asked me, or if the conversation came up at the party, I would make the case that abortion kills babies, even if it made her uncomfortable, and even if I lost a friend over it.

    The truth often makes people upset or uncomfortable. But it doesn’t make it less true. The logic and facts are on the pro-life or anti-abortion side: Abortion takes the life of a human being. It is this fact that makes abortion wrong.

    • #21
    • January 23, 2012, at 3:54 AM PST
    • Like
  22. Jimmy Carter Member

    Excellent excellent post, De Seno.

    • #22
    • January 23, 2012, at 3:57 AM PST
    • Like
  23. Tommy De Seno Contributor
    Tommy De Seno Post author
    Nobody’s Perfect: I can respect the views of some here that abortion is homicide. As for me, I’m agnostic – I just wish we could go back to the days when the people of each State made the decision, rather than the Supreme Court.

    But ask yourselves this: suppose you were at a social gathering, talking to a woman who you knew had had an abortion. Would you smile and politely call her a “baby killer”? Of course not.

    But when it comes to an entire class of people you don’t have to deal with face-to-face, well, that’s another matter. · 8 minutes ago

    I doubt she would bring it up at a party if it is hurtful to her. She likely has no part in selecting the words used in the national debate, either.

    If you were at a party with Barack Obama, Gloria Steinem and the head of each news network I would hope you’d make it a point to bring up the killing of babies, and call it just that.

    • #23
    • January 23, 2012, at 3:59 AM PST
    • Like
  24. Nobody's Perfect Inactive

    Tommy, you and I usually agree and I respect you. But on this one we part ways – I see no advantage and much harm in stigmatizing people who made the choice to have an abortion as “killers”.

    Many of those people might repent and might come over to your side if approached with kindness and gentle persuasion, but intemperate, self-righteous rhetoric isn’t going to persuade them.

    • #24
    • January 23, 2012, at 4:09 AM PST
    • Like
  25. Noesis Noeseos Inactive
    Nobody’s Perfect: I can respect the views of some here that abortion is homicide. … I just wish we could go back to the days when the people of each State made the decision, rather than the Supreme Court.

    But ask yourselves this: suppose you were at a social gathering, talking to a woman who you knew had had an abortion. Would you … politely call her a “baby killer”? Of course not.

    But when it comes to an entire class of people you don’t have to deal with face-to-face, well, that’s another matter. · 4 minutes ago

    Actually, returning the legal questions to the states is my own preference, even though my state, sadly, has a right to privacy written into its constitution.

    When to confront an individual is a matter of prudence and standing. A social gathering, designed for light encounters, would not be the place, but that does not mean that there is none whatsoever where a person shouldn’t be urged privately and with words appropriate to the situation to face the meaning of his or her deeds. The public discourse runs in parallel but with its own particular customs and rules.

    • #25
    • January 23, 2012, at 4:13 AM PST
    • Like
  26. Noesis Noeseos Inactive
    (sorry, double post)
    • #26
    • January 23, 2012, at 4:13 AM PST
    • Like
  27. Paul A. Rahe Contributor

    Tommy, posting this was a public serve. Thank you.

    • #27
    • January 23, 2012, at 4:23 AM PST
    • 1 like
  28. Grendel Member
    Nobody’s Perfect: Well, since there is no such word as homiciders…

    And, let’s face facts: when most people hear the word homicide, they think murder. · 2 hours ago

    A person who commits homicide is a “homicide“.

    And your scolding about making people feel bad is a liberal trope, cliched and mendacious. The core of the issue is whether abortion is homicide that deserves to be returned to the status of murder, and you want opponents of abortion to shut up because perpetrators and enablers will have their feelings hurt if it is pointed out to them that they deserve to be called murderers. The proponents of Jim Crow were likewise indignant at the imputation of racism.

    • #28
    • January 23, 2012, at 5:06 AM PST
    • 1 like
  29. Nobody's Perfect Inactive

    The core of the issue is whether abortion is homicide that deserves to be returned to the status of murder, and you want opponents of abortion to shut up because perpetrators and enablers will have their feelings hurt if it is pointed out to them that they deserve to be called murders.

    Proving my point. Perfectly. Thank you.

    • #29
    • January 23, 2012, at 5:11 AM PST
    • Like
  30. Grendel Member
    Nobody’s Perfect: Proving my point. Perfectly. Thank you. · 1 minute ago

    I didn’t prove anything. I just stated your point baldly, to show what preposterous special pleading it is. And you illustrated the dishonesty endemic on the pro-abortion side by leaving off the preceding and following sentences.

    You are arguing not against the argument but against making the argument. If you were counseling prudence in the name of advancing the cause I would agree with you, but I don’t see any sign of that. It is pretty clear from the comments that people know how to conduct themselves effectively. They don’t need any schooling from you; you can rest easy on that score.

    • #30
    • January 23, 2012, at 5:23 AM PST
    • Like
  1. 1
  2. 2