Niagara Gazette — With violence, outside of the abortion clinics, actually dropping, we are extending the term in which women can abort their babies, and we are calling it an equal rights provision?
What provision have we made for the father of that fetus who may have either wanted that child, or not wanted that child? The woman, with her equal rights, could determine that though the father wants the baby, and could even pledge to take total responsibility and provide lifelong care for the child, that she will abort it anyway, because she simply wants to do so. But, if the father does not want the child, she could also choose not to abort, even if he makes provision for the procedure, and then encumber him with her decision with the care of that child until it is in college — all under the auspices of “her” equal rights? Does that sound ‘equal’ to you; or does it sound like the woman has superior rights because it is her body, her baby?
If it will be, at some point, both of their babies, should not the father has something to say along the way, other than, “Yes, dear?” But, now here’s the caveat. Is it really whose baby?
According to various sources, a Kansas man is being pursued by the state to pay child support for a 3-year old little girl who was born as the result of a sperm donation to a lesbian couple; who then subsequently broke up and applied for state aid in raising the child.
The state contends that the man did not go through a licensed physician to make the donation, even though he apparently had no personal relationship with either of the two women. He had signed a contract with the woman stating that he was to have no responsibility for any child born because of his donation.