quote:
1. If a woman gets pregnant, she has the option of abortion or birth.

However, a man is stuck with whatever decision. He has no say in abortion and if she decides on birth, he has no legal way to get out of child support if he doesn't want kids.

The GOP position has generally been anti-abortion. If abortion were illegal except in the case of a mother's life being in danger, it wouldn't matter if men had a say or not in that because neither would the woman.

If abortion were mostly illegal, it would make sense to force fathers to care for their children. There wouldn't be any inequity given that he played a part in the conception of the child. Both parents should care for their children.

Just as I say to women who want abortion for convenience, I say the same thing to men who don't want to raise or at least provide for a child they produced: if you didn't want a child, don't participate in child-making activities. I don't generally support making it easier for people to stop taking responsibility for their actions.

quote:
2. Alimony is a dated concept. The fact that a person of either gender can not properly take care of themselves and is owed money from a spouse is a direct violation against Republicanism in general. If put in any other context, its welfare.

The point of alimony (traditionally) was to provide additional incentive for husbands to not leave their wives or do something to wreck the marriage (which would hopefully lead to a better family situation and better adjusted children, which would lead to a better society overall), as well as provide a means of support for women who couldn't support themselves. Women didn't usually work outside the home and had no marketable skills or opportunities to make money to provide for themselves and their children if their husbands abandoned them, which is why alimony was helpful.

You could argue that alimony isn't a necessity these days when so many women work and can provide for themselves if they get divorced. I'd be in favor of changing those laws to look at individual family situations where one spouse isn't working or is unable to work to provide for themselves and/or children after the divorce. Alimony should go both ways, but I'm in favor of it when the "innocent" spouse doesn't have the ability to earn enough money right away. It should be a deterrent to divorce, IMO, as divorce is typically a destructive practice for children and overall family values.

BTW, Republicans aren't against "welfare" in general, but government-provided welfare. We are in favor of charitable giving and helping those in need through individual and societal donations. It's a bit of a bait and switch to say that Republicans shouldn't be in favor of this because it would be "welfare" if the government was the one doing it. That differentiation makes all the difference. It's like when leftists say charity and tax-funded "assistance" by the government are the same thing; they are not.

quote:
3. Judges should not have the power to annul a legally binding Prenuptial Agreement. Only if the document in question violates another law or was prepared outside legal jurisdiction.

I'm not familiar with this scenario. Why would a judge annul a legally binding prenup that doesn't violate another law or was prepared outside legal jurisdiction? What justifications have been given?