| | What is the difference between fraudulent entrapment (deceiving a man into getting you pregnant) and rape (forcing a woman to become pregnant)? The answer is that -- while Roe v. Wade is still in effect -- a woman has the freedom to seek and abortion, and thus cannot be forced to assume responsibility for a child who was conceived against her will (by rape), while this poor sap in Michigan is very much in jeopardy of being forced to assume responsibility for a child who was conceived against his will (apparently by fraudulent entrapment).
Teresa is right -- I have a lot of kids: four by natural birth and one by adoption, as well as two great step-kids. My older daughter has three children, and my second son and his wife have one on the way, so I am a granddad almost 4 times over, well before I'm 60. (So, boo-hoo, Teresa. :-) These children have all been "wanted," and they are all loved. However, I can tell you, with no qualms whatsoever, that if I had found out "in time" (i.e., before emotional bonding with the children had occurred) that any of my wives had deceived me into thinking that a child conceived with some other man were mine, I would have done whatever was necessary (probably leaving the country) in order to cut her off without a cent from me. She and the taxpayers, or whoever felt generous about it, would have picked up the consequences of her actions, not me. And if I had found out about it too late to stall off the bonding with the child, I would have divorced her and supported the child, but not paid a cent of spousal support to her (again, leaving the country, if necessary). That's how strongly I feel about the issue and about being enslaved by another person's defrauding me.
There is fraud and there is fraud. Some people don't like being deceived and having their time wasted responding to the unreal -- but there is no way in hell that can remotely compare in wrecked relationships and lives to the shackling of a person's emotions and material wealth to the egocentric, exploitive use of unwanted babies to force another to do one's bidding. As Bush #1 said in a very different context, "This aggression will not stand."
The only thing about which I still think back with regret and anguish is that one of my wives (I won't say which) was so conflicted about our marriage (and her unfinished business), that she decided she wanted to abort our first conceived child. I was not in favor of the abortion, but I didn't try to stand in her way, and I didn't make it a marriage-ending issue, so a completely different sequence of children eventually followed as a result. I wouldn't trade any of the ones who were born, but can't help but sadly wonder what the one would have been like that didn't get born. Perhaps the child wasn't mine, and she was wanting to avoid sacrificing me to justify her choices (indiscretions?). I'll probably never know, but considering how manipulative and undercutting she has been toward me in so many other ways over the years, I doubt that justice toward me was her motivation. I suspect it was more likely an attempt to keep her options open in re her unfinished business, by not having a child to limit her chances to "jump ship." Not long after the abortion, she explored this avenue and it fell through, and we went on with our marriage and had three really great kids (and three grandkids at present count).
But it never ceases to amaze me that people will side with a woman whose rights have been violated by rape and condone her washing her hands of a pregnancy and a child she doesn't want, while a man whose rights have been violated by fraud apparently deserve no equal consideration. At least, the Pro-Lifers (rights from conception) are consistent. They're wrong as hell, but they don't use a double standard about it.
REB
(Edited by Roger Bissell on 3/20, 9:58pm)
|
|
