alt_edMaking Fatherhood a Choice
November 6th 2008 02:20
I just thought I'd share this article which highlights some points of law to the detriment of fathers under US law. I'm still an advocate of a women's right to choose, but indeed I concur that the father should be given further rights and a mechanism via which to air any grievances.
In a recent column, feminist Ellen Goodman answers this question in the negative, writing "Some men protest that they are left with no rights and all the bills. But when push comes to shove, one of two people has to make the decision. Those decisions belong to the one who will bear the child." For Goodman, reproductive rights are only for humans with the right genitalia. (Such a position makes you wonder what she thinks about voting rights--but I digress.)
If the woman alone makes the decision to continue or not continue a pregnancy, should not the woman alone be held responsible for the consequences of her decision? Why should a man be held responsible for a decision he did not make? As former NOW President Karen DeCrow once opined, independent women making independent decisions should not expect men to finance those decisions.
In fact, men are becoming increasingly restive under a system of reproductive laws that gives them responsibilities without the concomitant rights.
Consider this: today a mother can unilaterally abort the child, place the child for adoption, or abandon the child in a "safe haven," all without the father's knowledge or consent. All these actions end the father's rights and responsibilities for the child, even if he wants the child.
If the mother can terminate a father's rights and responsibilities for a child without his knowledge or consent, should not a father be able to terminate his own parental rights and responsibilities? Reproductive rights for men would give men that optionsometimes called a "paper abortion"--in certain circumstances.
Further, a woman can force a man into fatherhood without his knowledge or consent. How? Here are four ways:
* If married, she can have a child by another man, but the law presumes her husband is the legal father, even if she divorces him and marries the biological father.
* A woman can name a man as the father in a default paternity judgment, and most states treat him as the legal father even if a later DNA test shows he's not the father.
* A woman can use the contents of a discarded condom to impregnate herself, even if the man had sex with another woman.
* A woman can say she's "on the pill" when she's not, inducing a man to have unprotected sex he believes will not result in a pregnancy.
* If a woman does not consent to sex, she can file rape charges. If a man does not consent to fatherhood, he has no legal recoursehe pays mom or he goes to jail.
Still, men aren't dying from back alley abortions, are they? No, but they are being thrown into jail for failing to pay child support. A woman's decision to keep a child imposes on the father a legal obligation to support the child for 18 years in the amount dictated by the state or go to jail. For example, an underage boy cannot legally consent to sex, but if he has sex with an adult woman who has a child, he will be expected to pay his rapist support when he turns 18. If he fails to pay, he goes to jail.
If the state is going to jail men for failure to pay child support, it should also grant them the same reproductive rights it grants teenage girls.
One reason the state is reluctant to grant men the same rights it grants women is welfare. A single mother can easily become dependent on the state. The state's only remedy is to go after the father, so the states routinely round up dads and put them in jail. But a fundamental human and Constitutional right cannot be denied men so the state can afford to finance welfareand there's little evidence to show jailing dads reduces welfare costs.
Others argue that if a man plays, he should pay. That argument made sense before birth control, Roe v Wade, unilateral placement of infants for adoption, and "safe-haven" abandonment. Today, men have as much right to mitigate the consequences of an unwanted pregnancy as women.
And how do reproductive rights for men affect women's rights? It extends them. Women would still have the same options they have under current law. If she keeps the child, it is her choice and her responsibility. That's fair. She would also have the option of giving up her rights and responsibilities to the father, who could then keep the child, place it for adoption, or abandon the child in a "safe haven."
The philosophy behind reproductive rights is that the individual, whether a man or a woman, has the fundamental right to make his or her own reproductive choices. Fatherhood, like motherhood, should be a choice, not a legal trap.
U.S.A. by Paul C. Robbins, Ph.D. January 5, 2006
Should men have the same reproductive rights as women?
Should men have the same reproductive rights as women?
In a recent column, feminist Ellen Goodman answers this question in the negative, writing "Some men protest that they are left with no rights and all the bills. But when push comes to shove, one of two people has to make the decision. Those decisions belong to the one who will bear the child." For Goodman, reproductive rights are only for humans with the right genitalia. (Such a position makes you wonder what she thinks about voting rights--but I digress.)
If the woman alone makes the decision to continue or not continue a pregnancy, should not the woman alone be held responsible for the consequences of her decision? Why should a man be held responsible for a decision he did not make? As former NOW President Karen DeCrow once opined, independent women making independent decisions should not expect men to finance those decisions.
In fact, men are becoming increasingly restive under a system of reproductive laws that gives them responsibilities without the concomitant rights.
Consider this: today a mother can unilaterally abort the child, place the child for adoption, or abandon the child in a "safe haven," all without the father's knowledge or consent. All these actions end the father's rights and responsibilities for the child, even if he wants the child.
If the mother can terminate a father's rights and responsibilities for a child without his knowledge or consent, should not a father be able to terminate his own parental rights and responsibilities? Reproductive rights for men would give men that optionsometimes called a "paper abortion"--in certain circumstances.
Further, a woman can force a man into fatherhood without his knowledge or consent. How? Here are four ways:
* If married, she can have a child by another man, but the law presumes her husband is the legal father, even if she divorces him and marries the biological father.
* A woman can name a man as the father in a default paternity judgment, and most states treat him as the legal father even if a later DNA test shows he's not the father.
* A woman can use the contents of a discarded condom to impregnate herself, even if the man had sex with another woman.
* A woman can say she's "on the pill" when she's not, inducing a man to have unprotected sex he believes will not result in a pregnancy.
* If a woman does not consent to sex, she can file rape charges. If a man does not consent to fatherhood, he has no legal recoursehe pays mom or he goes to jail.
Still, men aren't dying from back alley abortions, are they? No, but they are being thrown into jail for failing to pay child support. A woman's decision to keep a child imposes on the father a legal obligation to support the child for 18 years in the amount dictated by the state or go to jail. For example, an underage boy cannot legally consent to sex, but if he has sex with an adult woman who has a child, he will be expected to pay his rapist support when he turns 18. If he fails to pay, he goes to jail.
If the state is going to jail men for failure to pay child support, it should also grant them the same reproductive rights it grants teenage girls.
One reason the state is reluctant to grant men the same rights it grants women is welfare. A single mother can easily become dependent on the state. The state's only remedy is to go after the father, so the states routinely round up dads and put them in jail. But a fundamental human and Constitutional right cannot be denied men so the state can afford to finance welfareand there's little evidence to show jailing dads reduces welfare costs.
Others argue that if a man plays, he should pay. That argument made sense before birth control, Roe v Wade, unilateral placement of infants for adoption, and "safe-haven" abandonment. Today, men have as much right to mitigate the consequences of an unwanted pregnancy as women.
And how do reproductive rights for men affect women's rights? It extends them. Women would still have the same options they have under current law. If she keeps the child, it is her choice and her responsibility. That's fair. She would also have the option of giving up her rights and responsibilities to the father, who could then keep the child, place it for adoption, or abandon the child in a "safe haven."
The philosophy behind reproductive rights is that the individual, whether a man or a woman, has the fundamental right to make his or her own reproductive choices. Fatherhood, like motherhood, should be a choice, not a legal trap.
| 48 |
| Vote |
Subscribe to this blog
Comment by Butterfly7
Anything and Everything!!!
Great article!!!
Comment by Morgan Bell
Deep Pencil
Current Business News
Movie Train
Artist Quirk
i wonder if this happens very often?
i still think men should take a bit of responsibility, you could wear a condom if you wanted to!
it seems like mostly a financial issue, and i both agree and disagree . . . if he consensually has sex and she chooses to go ahead with the pregnancy . . . hmmm nup forgot what i was gunna say, its a conumdrum . . . on the one hand the child deserves to be financially cared for . . . but then again if you had government welfare it wouldnt be such a major issue
should deadbeat dads be allowed to just refuse to contribute to their child? hmmmm its quite complex
i guess many would say that they should pay in proportion to how much custody they get . . . in Australia it is also a percentage relative to your wage, so some dads pay $25 a week and some pay $350
one thing i do know: there would be fewer abortions if more dads stuck around and took an interest in being part of the childs life . . . but you cant force people to be interested can you?
very interesting topic alt_ed!
i have no absolute answers for you . . .
Comment by alt_ed
Alted Opinion
ArtCombat
The Inner Saintdom
Thanks for stopping by. I like your answer
Morgan, I just think it's good to consider the whole 'pro-choice' debate from a man's perspective. I am still 100% for a women's right to choose, but perhaps a few more rules need to be put into place safeguarding the fathers rights. I do believe though, these rights should be firm, and still provide protection for the women- But I guess, if she wanted to abort the pregnancy simply because she didn't want the kid but the father did, then perhaps a mediator could be sought to try and negotiate the situation at hand...
Its a really tricky debate, and I don't know of many others with so many shades of grey when it comes to the solution.