Posted on 03/23/2006 8:43:50 PM PST by Crackingham
Real men -- good men -- take responsibility for the children they father. If they get a woman pregnant, they do the right thing: They stand by her. They support their child. They don't try to weasel out of a situation they co-authored. They shoulder the obligations of fatherhood, even if they hadn't planned on becoming a father.
Once upon a time, men confronted with news of an unintended pregnancy knew what was expected of them. More often than not, they married the woman who was carrying their child; for those tempted to behave irresponsibly, society devised the shotgun wedding. Women, too, knew what was expected of them. They tended to be very careful about sex. If they didn't always wait until they were married, they waited for a relationship that seemed to be marriage-bound.
It wasn't a perfect system and it didn't guarantee perfect happiness, but on the whole it was realistic: It recognized that sex has consequences. It bound men to the women they impregnated and made sure that children had dads as well as moms.
But the old code was swept away by the Sexual Revolution. With the Pill and easy abortion came the illusion of sex *without* consequences. Pregnancy could be avoided or readily undone. Men didn't have to marry women they impregnated; women didn't have to reserve themselves for men who were committed or whose intentions were honorable. With the devaluation of sex came the devaluation of fatherhood. Men got used to the idea of sex without strings. So did women, many of whom also grew accustomed to the idea of motherhood without husbands. Government got involved, too, mandating welfare benefits for unmarried moms, and child-support checks from "deadbeat dads." With the incentives for marriage weaker than ever, more and more children were born out of wedlock. In 1950, just 4 percent of births were to unmarried mothers. By 1980, the rate was more than 18 percent. It stands today at nearly 36 percent.
All this is bad enough. Comes now Matt Dubay with a proposal to make things worse.
A 25-year-old computer programmer in Michigan, Dubay wants to know why it is only women who have "reproductive rights." He is upset about having to pay child support for a baby he never wanted. Not only did his former girlfriend know he didn't want children, says Dubay, she had told him she was infertile. When she got pregnant nonetheless, he asked her to get an abortion or place the baby for adoption. She decided instead to keep her child, and secured a court order requiring him to pay $500 a month in support.
Not fair, Dubay complains. His ex-girlfriend *chose* to become a mother. It was her choice not to have an abortion, her choice to carry the baby to term, her choice not to have the child adopted. She even had the option, under the "baby safe haven" laws most states have enacted, to simply leave her newborn at a hospital or police station. Roe v. Wade gives her and all women the right -- the Constitutional right! -- to avoid parenthood and its responsibilities. Dubay argues that he should have the same right, and has filed a federal lawsuit that his supporters are calling "Roe v. Wade for men." Drafted by the National Center for Men, it contends that as a matter of equal rights, men who don't want a child should be permitted, early in pregnancy, to get "a financial abortion" releasing them from any future responsibility to the baby.
Does Dubay have a point? Sure. Contemporary American society does send very mixed messages about sex and the sexes. For women, the decision to have sex is the first of a series of choices, including the choice to abort a pregnancy -- or, if she prefers, to give birth and then collect child support from the father. For men, legal choices end with the decision to have sex. If conception takes place, a man can be forced to accept the abortion of a baby he wants -- or to spend at least the next 18 years turning over a chunk of his income to support a child he didn't want.
All true. But it is also true that predatory males have done enormous damage to American society, and the last thing our culture needs is one more way for men to escape accountability for the children they father. Dubay wants more than the freedom to be sexually reckless -- he wants that freedom to be constitutionally guaranteed. Truly he is a child of his time, passionate on the subject of rights and eager to duck responsibility.
The culture used to send a clear message to men in Dubay's position: Marry the mother and be a father to your child. Today it tells him: Just write a monthly check. Soon -- if this lawsuit succeeds -- it won't say even that. The result will not be a fairer, more equal society. It will be a society with even more abortion, even more exploitation of women, even more of the destructiveness and instability caused by fatherlessness.
Half of today's women will dump the father, take full child custody, and still demand child support.
(Denny Crane: "I Don't Want To Socialize With A Pinko Liberal Democrat Commie. Say What You Like About Republicans. We Stick To Our Convictions. Even When We Know We're Dead Wrong.")
Simple physics. F=ma
If you want to F, you will pay the money (m) out the ass (a) unless proper precautions are taken. It's a baby, not a bill. make a baby, pay for a baby.
Actually, the "good old days" were not all that good for women and children in the out of wedlock situation. Baby abandonment and abortion were common ... as was forced removal of the baby from the mother after birth.
Not a bad article until the "predatory male" comment. Then it all fell apart, with its agenda easy to see.
I'm sure she promised to be aids free, too.
Worth the risk?
"he asked her to get an abortion"
What a sympathtic character - sounds like he just wants to do the right thing/
"until the "predatory male" comment"
Agreed. Jacoby's argument seems to be, hmm, let's see...
Out of wedlock births have gone from 4% to 36% under granting women "reproductive rights" since 1950. We can't let the impregnators escape from economic responsibility even when they have been duped into providing said service. (Note this article does NOT mention that the plaintiff IS meeting his economic responsibilities.)
I'd like Mr. Jacoby to defend the even more astronomical rise of in and out of wedlock deaths that have occurred since granting women "reproductive rights".
That might cause him to meltdown. He might realize that most of those unborn would be inbred "D" voters.
Hey folks, this abortion thingie might not be that bad after all. /sarcasm off
Hey, how about this: let the woman get a "financial abortion" from the father of her baby. She waives all rights to child support and without that support she has no obligation to share the baby with him. That would cut down on a few abortions. Sometimes it isn't the baby she doesn't want in her life, it's the baby's father.
"Financial abortion." What'll they think of next?
His problem was that he believed her. And chose sex outside marriage. Big Risk.
This gender bias in law cannot stand. It's immoral and repugnant. If we're going to give women such supreme power over life and death of the unborn, allowing her to force the male to pay up isn't the way to do it. That's not a way to create a family and will only make the child a pawn in a power struggle between the spiteful women and the entrapped man.
"His ex-girlfriend *chose* to become a mother. It was her choice not to have an abortion, her choice to carry the baby to term, her choice not to have the child adopted. She even had the option, under the "baby safe haven" laws most states have enacted, to simply leave her newborn at a hospital or police station. Roe v. Wade gives her and all women the right -- the Constitutional right! -- to avoid parenthood and its responsibilities."
What some people don't seem to understand is that this "list of choices" only really becomes "choices" if all things are equal...which they aren't. Not ALL women believe that aborting a baby is "alright". Not all women believe that abandoning a baby at a hospital is a super choice equal to say, raising a child! Duh!
"Dubay wants to know why it is only women who have "reproductive rights."
wellllllllll duh!!! Because only women have to bare and give birth to the baby, you moron! This is NOT the same as your wonderful and productive sperm contribution that probably lasted all of ten seconds. Women have to give much more of themselves to the child thus they get more say...simple and fair.
"men who don't want a child should be permitted, early in pregnancy, to get "a financial abortion" releasing them from any future responsibility to the baby. "
Oh yeah? they still get to have a biological legacy walking around somewhere and whats to keep the a-hole from say twenty years from now all of a sudden wanting a wonderful father/son/daughter relationship? After all the hard work is done? all the perks and none of the hardship?
You men who think this is wonderful better watch what you wish for cause if this shit flies women will start deciding that it isn't worth it to even "have" sex until the ring is on the finger!
"Love is blind?" Marriage would not have changed his rights one bit, only cemented that he had to pay. He couldn't prevent her from aborting his wife's child, couldn't prevent her from keeping his child, couldn't require her to give the child up for adoption, couldn't rid himself of fiscal liability.
Yes, his (apparently unprotected) sexual activity was a risky decision. But it was offered under false pretenses. Now he's on the hook for 18 years and was massively betrayed. In the world of Roe vs. Wade, it should not be legal for a woman to offer sexual contact under such false claims as "I'm infertile." It's grand larceny spread over 16, 18, 22 years. She should do time in prison and forfeit her parent rights. If the man claims to be sterile (or not have HIV when he does and knows differently) he should be equally liable under law.
Where's the harm in that?
KID (Keep It Dry) later reading ping...
(Denny Crane: "I Don't Want To Socialize With A Pinko Liberal Democrat Commie. Say What You Like About Republicans. We Stick To Our Convictions. Even When We Know We're Dead Wrong.")
(Oh, I forgot:: Nowdays, the attitude that sex should be saved for marriage ONLY, is considered out of touch, sexist, racist, chauvinistic, hateful, old-fashioned, intolerant, unconstitutional, bigoted and so on. )
If that is the case, (and it seems to be, even among most so-called Christians), the the world needs an "attitude adjustment"!!
Our elite/effete have already used the divorce industry and associated feminist laws to show us that fathers are nothing more than open wallets. And our corporate bosses (nearly all to the social left) have set the US standard for fatherhood as they buy and pay off wives one after another to further legitimize serial polygamy.
Was it something I said? If not I wish you'd post to #1 or "all." Not to give anyone the impression I launched you. :)
And THAT's a PROBLEM? Sounds like a solution to me.
sorry!:) will do!
True but this case the guy was setup by Her, telling him she was infertile.
How could SHE know for sure that she was infertile???
ping
With the full sanction of the state and legal "profession."
It's right that this was the first response to this thread. It was my first reaction.
Because we are already a good ways down the road to Hades and there seem to be no brakes on the car. The only way to stop is to run off the road and crash. We must push the system using the tools of the enemy to the point where it hurts the regular person so much that they finally cry out "enough! Unless we do the killing of unborn children will continue, young women will continue to make babies without thought to raising them and young men will remain the brainless sexual machines that modern pop culture expects.
Years ago the fire under the pot was kindled and we frogs first thought it was a nice warm bath. We have to kick the heat up so high and so fast so that most of the froggies realize that if we stay in the pot any long its going to be frog soup.
Maybe waiting till marriage is what is needed.
By the way, don't assume men have no roles during pregnancy.
I went thru the following with my children:
1. prenatal appointments
2. Cleaning up after my wife when she was nauseated
3. 1:00 AM backrubs
4. Mood Swings from HELL
5. No sex for 8 months
Now...I may not have carried the child, but I D*MN SURE PAID MY DUES.......
There seems to be an attitude that responsibility is increased by making it apply to more people (both the man and the woman). That's exactly the way to decrease responsibility, because it dilutes it. Putting it all on one person will be far more effective at preventing this type of thing from happening. And for those who object that it's not "fair", it's no less fair than giving the mother complete custody of the child while the father (or alleged father, as the case may be) is hit with the financial burden.
And when it comes right down to it, it's really the biology itself that isn't "fair", so take it up with God.
If she'd had her tubes tied or her ovaries removed, that would usually be a good indication.
If she'd had her tubes tied or her ovaries removed, that would usually be a good indication.
If that the case, being pregnant then??? Hmmmm!!!
Does "deported" count as a legal status?
Or rather it should. What will actually happen is that the question will get to the Supreme Court and the Justices will figure out what outcome they prefer and backfill arguments to support their conclusion and our judicial tyranny will continue apace.
"Reproductive Rights" is one of those public issues where the inequality between the sexes is rarely discussed.
Reproductive rights does not exist as a legal concept for men, and men are regularly told that they have responsibilities and not rights. A man has no "reproductive rights" that a woman is bound to respect, whether in nor out of marriage, to keep the baby or not. The only right that men have is to keep their pants zipped up, as the course of their lives and their hope for posterity is entirely dependent on the woman's "choice".
I remember hearing a feminazi screeching about how vital "reproductive rights " were for all human beings, insofar as their ability to determine the course of their lives is concerned. It got me to wondering how it is that no comparable "reproductive right" exists for men other than the right to keep your trousers zipped up. A man's income can involuntarily be confiscated to care for children that he does not want, affecting the course of his life. Under the law, he is utterly responsible to support any children with his DNA, and often even for those without it. In many states, women are allowed to ABANDON newborn children that they do not want at hospitals or firehouses, no questions asked. Men don't even have any "reproductive rights" in marriage, because his wife retains her "reproductive rights" if she "chooses" to exercise them.
I don't think either sex should have these "reproductive rights", and should deal with the concequences of a pregnancy, wanted or not. But if as the feminazi says, these rights are vital to human beings, than I wish to suggest the following remedies. An unmarried man, upon being promptly notified of an unwanted pregnacy by his mate, should have the option of a paternal veto (abortion) absolving him of financial and legal responsibility for the child. A married man who discovers that his wife has had an abortion against his wishes should recieve presumptive grounds for a divorce or annullment of the marriage, with the same holding true for one who concieves against his wishes.
Than again maybe the feminazi thinks that men shouldn't qualify for "reproductive rights" since she probably thinks men aren't human anyway.
My point is that men have no LEGAL "reproductive right" that is INDEPENDENT of a woman's choice, wheras women have options that can be and are exercised independently of a man's wishes. Note that this feminine reproductive veto extends to nullification of the man's wishes whether the man wants the child or not, whether in or out of marriage. While I am acutely aware that this is in large part due to the uniqueness of the reproductive process, this nevertheless leaves the man without any independent ability to influence the woman legally.
I am not even necessarily saying that this is a bad thing, but I do find it curious that we often behave as though the only party affected by the birth of a child is the woman, and to prevent a negative influence on the course of her life we must preserve her right to kill her unborn child. If unmarried, she can "choose" to keep the child and can enlist the support of the state to forcibly take money from the sperm donor against his will. And if he wants the child, then he must yield to her choice to abort.
The common response to the man is that you should have been more careful in your choice of partner, or you should have kept your trousers zipped up. Legally he is told that he has no option other than the one that the woman "chooses" to give him.
Again, I think that BOTH parties should allow a normal pregnancy to take it's course, and come to a mutually agreed upon resolution. But if we insist upon a regime where a "reproductive right" is allowed for only half of the human race, than I think that men should have some LEGAL option to influence the woman's "choice" in either direction, rather than act as though this isn't a significant life altering event for them as well. The one option that I would absolutely forbid, of course is a forced abortion. Consider paternal veto for unmarried men or presumptive divorce grounds for a married man whose wife "chooses" against his wishes.
Having said all this, I do think it unlikely to happen. Men are legally held to the strictest of standard of responsibility where conception is concerned.
The object is to formulate POLICY and LAW that is MOST LIKELY to make the best out of a bad situation. I think that the best objective would be away from subsidizing single motherhood and toward heterosexual 2 parent adoption. Yes it is infinintely better than the evil that is abortion. Remember, what has significantly changed in the reproductive relationship between men and women is the behavior of WOMEN due to radical feminism and the sexual revolution. Men have basically remained the indiscriminate pigs that nature inclines them to be, absent the moderating forces of civillization and traditional feminine rectitude that largely prompted the development of it by chanelling the creative energy and power of men in ways that convince women to share gene pools with them. I think most would agree that most women have been evolutionarily programmed to be more sexually reticent and discriminating due to the disproportionate burdens that reproduction incurs upon them. Societal mechanisms (which also served to moderate the rampant sexual tendencies of men that remain essentially unchanged) that acknowledged this reality have been distorted by Roe, and the cultural Marxism of the counter cultural revolution of the '60s that are now nearly mainstream. (This is no accident. Read about the influence of the cultural Marxists Erich Fromm and Herbert Marcuse) This suit has the possibility of restoring some of that balance by reviving the civillizing sexual moderation of women. Lest you think me sexist, I have simply been able to cast off the veil of obsfucation cast over my vision by political correctness.
As every basic economic theory has shown, when you subsidize a thing you get more of it. The various levels of government have been subsidizing single motherhood for four decades now with a commensurate rise in the rate of bastard children with no fathers in their lives. Public policy should be toward encouraging adoption for such children rather than all of the aid programs and forced child support payments for single women that have helped to accelerate the trend.
Where are you folks when the child support levels are being set by the companies that collect child support for the state? "HE NEEDS TO PAY" the masses scream and then they ignore the total shafting of the GOOD GUYS WHO DO PAY.
The fact that she does not want the baby's father in the equation says a lot about her ability to parent.
I have a feeling that you just blame men because you are a women?
But all the "conservatives" here don't care about all that. They believe everything NOW says about the "deadbeat dads."
The way I read it, there's no indication that she doesn't want the baby's father in the equation. She sought child support. That definitely factors him in.
And if I were her mother I'd tell her to think twice about seeking child support from a man who didn't want to have a child with her (much less pay support for 18 years). That keeps him in her life and she might well do much better to keep him completely out. Getting pregnant by him was the first mistake. Why compound it?
Just because she sought child support does not mean she is going to allow the man to see the child. The court MIGHT hold her in contempt she did not allow him to see the child, it depends on the court.
As far as her doing better without this guy, maybe so, maybe not. I think this guy is probably truthful with his accusation of deceit or he would not have gone this far. She can keep him out completely, she can let him sign away his rights (as with all things legal, this proposition "depends" a great deal on if that state allows a woman to relinguish a child's right to support without another man stepping in and taking on that obligation). A lot of people do it. But, and here is the kicker, she wants the cash, and doing that might impede her ability to obtain it. Getting pregnant was the mistake. By him could make the mistake worse, but getting pregnant is the real issue. If this man is being truthful, getting pregnant on false pretenses, by a man she knew did not want to be a father is a big mistake. But she won't have to pay the most for it, the child will.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.