Posted on 03/17/2006 5:13:41 PM PST by twippo
Washington, D.C. — Concerned Women for America (CWA) criticized today a recent lawsuit filed by The National Center for Men which argues that fathers should be able to opt out of financial responsibilities for “unwanted” babies. This deplorable proposition is an outrage to responsible women and men and to those who know the importance of family and father-child relationships.
"This is merely an attempt for these men to avoid their responsibilities if their 'girlfriends' shoulder their own duties and refuse to have an abortion,” said Dr. Janice Crouse, CWA’s Senior Fellow of the Beverly LaHaye Institute. “It is another way that The National Center for Men wants men to be able to have sex without consequences; they want men to live scot-free, with no accountability. They acknowledge that they won't win the suit they are filing, but they want to start a debate on the issue.
“Raising the issue to the level of public debate would make it appear to be less irresponsible for men to ignore their fatherhood and separate sex from accountability. The question remains -- what about the rights of the child?
“Fathers are becoming increasingly absent in the lives of their children. It is a detriment to our society and the well-being of the family. Children who are raised without knowing the love and compassion of a father suffer long-lasting wounds. They often look to destructive avenues for the acceptance they did not get from their missing daddies.
“Fathers must start acting like men and accept responsibility for their actions. This lawsuit is nothing more than an attempt to save a few bucks and get out of kid duty. They need to wake up, smell the diapers, and realize that fatherhood is a beautiful and huge responsibility, which affects the lives of children and our society as a whole.”
Brough to you by: Liberalism. Thanks, you leftist turds.
""This is merely an attempt for these men to avoid their responsibilities if their 'girlfriends' shoulder their own duties and refuse to have an abortion,” said Dr. Janice Crouse"
It's rare that I agree with CWA but this time they've hit the nail on the head.
It's simply another rationale by another "victimized group" to avoid taking responsibility for their own actions. However, the liberal baby-killers have no logical way to refute the argument. Let's see what happens as bedlam breaks out.
The cwfa can not see the hypocrisy in this? You are correct, bedlam will break out. Even the most disconnected will not be able to resolve this logic.
I'll play Devil's Advocate here. Put abortion out of the equation. If a woman can give her baby up for adoption, most of us wouldn't say she's shirking her responsibilities, we'd say she's giving her child a better life.
My state, Florida, has Safe Haven laws so a mother can anonymously leave her baby under 30 days old at an emergency-ready facility like a hospital. She doesn't have to fill out any forms or do anything except take a blood test to verify that she is the rightful mother. She doesn't have to notify her parents if she's a minor, and she doesn't have to notify the father either. If mothers can do all this without the father's consent, why should fathers have responsibilities while mothers have all the rights?
HELLO? There's a much simpler way to have sex without consequences --- it's called a CONDOM
Katie O'Bierne is right, the Roe supporting feminists are women who have made the world worse by leading to financial penalties against women who choose to keep their child.
The "they" I was referring to are these men's groups and the liberal baby killers, not CWFA.
"financial penalties against women who choose to keep their child."
If it encourages adoption into two-parent homes or the mother to marry the father, I would support those penalties. Now, I would be fully against a penalty for the woman simply **bearing** the child. Social policy should reward adoption and marriage at every turn.
There is an oxymoron if I ever heard one. The unborn child has no rights (it can be murdered by an abortion if the woman wishes.) But somehow the moment the women gives birth the child has rights?
"But somehow the moment the women gives birth the child has rights?"
It's really because when the woman gives birth, the child for the first time is the responsibility of more than one person.
It takes two to tango. Both male and female need to accept responsibility for their actions. Neither should have the right to kill a child or abandon the child......
So would you require the father's notification for a Safe Haven baby drop-off?
CWA doesn't get it. These men aren't trying to shirk their responsibilities. The man who brought the suit is trying to make a statement (at least CWA acknowledges that).
Women have l00% of the determination of the future child- even to the point of whether that child lives or dies. The father has, again and again, been denied rights to their child- EXCEPT for financial responsibility when the women "decides" to keep the child and now wants the cash.
I'm against the creation of illegitimate children, abortion, and deadbeat dads, but the guy has a point.
"CWA doesn't get it."
I agree. Both secular feminists and conservative religious women have a tendency to assign "bad" sexuality to men and make women out to be vicitms. "It's those evil men who want easy sex and those poor women are duped into putting out," is the mentality.
The truth of the matter is, sometimes the man is straightfoward that he doesn't want kids and the woman gets pregnant intentionally to trap him. Some women lie about about being sterilized or on birth control. Or they may keep a used condom to cause a pregnancy.
Men will have to come up with an equivalent to a pre-nup for sex, saying ahead of time that they don't want the responsibility of a child.
Incredible where rampant fornication has taken us! Biblical sexual ethics are starting to look better, aren't they?
a pre-nup wouldn't help. the woman would take the issue to court after the birth of the child. the judge would then have to rule in the best interests of the child, and the man would have to pay.
a pre-nup would not over-ride the best interests of the child.
You may be right. A judge could rule that the woman's dishonesty made her an unfit mother and the child would be placed elsewhere, but that is a long shot.
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.