In a state that had a law against abortion, I would doubt that a court would award a man one for a woman he knocked up. 
Posted on 08/08/2002 4:58:13 AM PDT by victim soul
John Stachokus, the Pennsylvania would-be father who lost his bid to block his ex-girlfriend's abortion, has found himself in a position familiar to millions of American men: He has a large personal stake in a decision in which he is not allowed to take any part. His wishes are irrelevant.
When it comes to reproduction, in America today women have rights and men merely have responsibilities.
When a woman wants a child and a man does not, the woman can have the child anyway -- and demand 18 years of child support from the father. This remains true even if the father had made it clear that he did not want to have children, and even if the woman had previously agreed to respect his wishes.
For decades, leading feminist organizations such as the National Organization for Women and the National Abortion and Reproductive Rights Action League have argued that women should have reproductive rights because nobody should be able to tell them what to do with their own bodies. Thus the slogan "My Body, My Choice."
But the sacrifices required to pay 18 years of child support should not be discounted, either. The average American father works a 51-hour work week, one of the longest in the industrialized world. It is men, overwhelmingly, who do our society's hazardous jobs.
Nearly 50 American workers are injured every minute of the 40-hour work week. On average, every day 17 die -- 16 of them male. Couldn't men who work long hours or do hazardous jobs -- and who suffer the concomitant physical ailments and injuries -- argue that their bodies are on the line, too? Where is their choice?
NOW and NARAL were legitimately concerned that the Pennsylvania anti-abortion injunction, which was issued on a temporary basis last Wednesday and dissolved the following Monday, could have established a precedent for giving men and the government control over an important aspect of women's lives.
But when a woman forces a man to be responsible for a child only she wants, is she not exercising control over his life? And when the massive government child-support apparatus hounds the reluctant father for financial support, takes a third of his income and jails him if he comes up short, isn't the government exercising control over his life?
Advocates of reproductive choice for men -- the right of an unmarried man to sign away his parenting rights and responsibilities upon learning of an unwanted pregnancy -- have a legitimate claim, based on the same arguments that feminists have used to support their case for choice for women.
When the situation is reversed and the woman does not want to have a child and the man does -- as is the case with Stachokus and his ex-girlfriend, Tanya Meyers -- once again, women have rights and men do not.
A woman who doesn't want her child can terminate the pregnancy against the father's wishes, or put their child up for adoption, sometimes without the father's permission. In some states, she can even return the baby to the hospital within a week of birth. More than 1 million American women legally walk away from motherhood every year.
Perhaps, as some have argued, Stachokus was using his legal maneuvers as a way to exercise control over the ex-girlfriend who broke up with him. More likely he was simply a proud papa-to-be. Maybe he imagined his child to be a little daddy's girl, or a son he would proudly raise to be a man. Or perhaps he is just a stand-up guy who wanted to live up to what he sees as his responsibilities.
Even if Stachokus had persuaded Meyers to have their child, he probably would not have been allowed to be a meaningful part of his child's life. Meyers does not want to marry or stay with him. Legal precedents -- and a stubbornly held but baseless cultural notion that children fare better with their mothers -- suggest that, even though he was willing to take full or partial custody, he would have had little chance of getting it.
Many unwed and divorced fathers face a difficult struggle to remain a part of their children's lives.
Custodial mothers frequently violate fathers' visitation rights, and courts do little to enforce them. Some custodial mothers move hundreds or even thousands of miles away from their children's fathers, and it is frequently difficult for these dads to maintain regular contact with their kids.
Stachokus may have ended up like the hundreds of thousands of American fathers who love children they are not able or allowed to see, and whose suffering is ignored by a society that seems capable only of denigrating fathers.
John, whatever move you made, you never had a chance. Welcome to modern American fatherhood.
(Glenn Sacks writes about gender issues from the male perspective. Diana Thompson is the founder and executive director of the American Coalition for Fathers and Children.)
Historically, this has not proven to be the case.
Why or how do you think that the male has most of the responsibility? And yes, a female should do whatever she can to avoid getting pregnant if she doesn't want to get pregnant. So should a male. But we rarely see males taking on the responsibility of birth control. There hasn't been much birth control available for males and not enough emphasis on the importance of using what little they do have.
Easy, Woman decides she doesn't wanna be a mom she can:
1) Kill the Child
2) Give the Child up for adoption
3) Dump the Child on a relitive
4) Dump the Child on the father
5) Dump the Child on the state
Consequenses: NONE
Dad decides he doesn't wanna be responsible he can:
1) Not pay child support.
Consequenses: Man becomes a Fellon, branded a criminal for the rest of his days.
Now if one wants to be a parent..
She:
delivers the child.
He:
Has no choice, his baby dies at the hands of the woman and her doctor.
Understand now?
In a state that had a law against abortion, I would doubt that a court would award a man one for a woman he knocked up.
I understand that your post is full of so much vitriol against women as to be truly delusional. Other than that, it makes no sense at all.
Now if one wants to be a parent..
She:
delivers the child.
He:
Has no choice, his baby dies at the hands of the woman and her doctor
The woman delivers a child and the child dies at the hands of the woman and her doctor? What do they do, strangle the poor kid?
Clarity, over emotion, would be most appreciated, Outlaw.
That argument conveniently omits that women wear pants nowadays too. It also treats women as victims of evil men regardless of what negative consequences their own actions may bring their way. It's demeaning to women in the same way the welfare and equal opportunity state is demeaning to minorities. It also sets men up as a class of humans to be hated and reviled. Thanks for your liberal feminist (or was it narrowmindedly chivalrous?) insight.
Consequenses: NONE
Sorry, I can't agree with you here. There are plenty of consequences, for any of the above.
Dad decides he doesn't wanna be responsible he can:
1) Not pay child support.
Consequenses: Man becomes a Fellon, branded a criminal for the rest of his days.
Failure to pay child support is a felony now?
If you deny that a woman's "choice" begins when she opens her legs, I would consider it bigotry, pure and simple. Regardless, who effed who should have no bearing on the decision to murder an unborn child.
But it does. Because if nobody irresponsibly effed anyone in the first place, the point would be moot.
My disagreement begins with the phrase bolded above. There is nothing that can follow that particular "so long as...". Once a man/father surrenders to anyone else his right to protect his biological child from conception forward, the war, for his own life to mean anything and for society to have any foundation at all, is already lost.
It is evil that anyone can kill a child through abortion. It is just plain wrong that a man has no way to protect the life of his child.
True. And for those who say that a paternal veto will never happen, I could offer a laundry list of things people said will never happen...the Pennsylvania case brought this into the mainstream spotlight like nothing else ever has, and there is a lot more where that came from. This is the beginning of the most massive social upheaval in human history, centered upon the most fundamental element of our lives; the right to love and protect our children, from the beginning.
Seriously, what would you venture is the societal basis for that mentality?
I most certainly do not and have not. Can you show me where I have?
That almost sounds like a Mark Twain quote. ;-) He referred to it as "practing the art," I believe.
Simple logic to me...
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.