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.)
Well Ms. Cleo, you're wrong again. Nothing that I posted is not the truth and can be verified by a simple check of laws governing child support on the state as well as federal level. The fact your husband has not been jailed has more to do with the fact he's now paying then anything else. Let him stop paying again and see what happens. Since he's having his tax returns seized, have him apply for a passport then get back to me.
Furthermore, I'm the first to openly acknowledge the complete lack of organized religion in my life. I attend no church, temple, mosque etc. So how is it that some pastor has told me what to believe? Do you belive a woman can not have strong opinions, backed up by facts on this issue?
It isn't possible for a person to believe abortion is wrong without being religious or basing that belief not on the fact it's the murder of a human being, but a belief in some omnipotent entity?
Of course it couldn't be that I've studied this issue for myself, looked at the gender wars started by so called feminist groups, read their own words of hatred against men and fathers and look at how legislation pushed by these same feminist groups have turned this country into a father-less society where fathers who want nothing more to be a part of their childs lives have little to no rights. Legislation and proposals pushed by the same groups that have turned men into walking ATM's.
The claim you make that I could not possible have my own beliefs is a typical insult used by feminists to diminish the capacity of women to have their own opinions. When they contridict the typical feminist, man-hating, family-busting agenda of course it's not the woman thinking for herself, it's some outside entity turning her against the "proper" role of a woman. What an insult to the intelligence of most women on this board.
When I can be shown a single human who has ever walked the face of the earth that did not start out as a simple cell made from the egg of a female and sperm from a man then I'll change my opinion that life does not begin at conception. The way some pro-abortionists talk, you'd think it's some non-living blob of nothing that only turns into a baby/human being when the woman wants it.
I'm sorry I didn't make myself clearer. Since the thread was about men complaining about their lack of choices, I commented only on the mens' actions.
I have a similar lack of sympathy about women who complain about getting pregnant and not being taken care of, when the same option applies to them as well. Pregnancy is completely preventable - if someone has sex without protection, they shouldn't whine about getting pregant, either man or woman. (I will reserve judgement on rape victims - in this case having sex was not their choice.)
In either case, it takes two to tango, and I do get tired of men complaining about it, like it was all the women's fault. And I get tired about women complaining about it, like it was all the mens' fault. To either one - keep your pants on and you won't have this problem.
"Once again, you're putting words in my mouth."
I most certainly didn't.
It pays to read a little bit
little words like if and it.
That started when the courts decided that men don't have any business raising their own children once mom gets bored with him. The divorce industry expressly punishes people for simply being born male.
Riddle me this....what percentage are womwn awarded custody in contested custody cases? Why are they awarded custody in that percentage of those cases?
How is it "punishing children" if the father has the same rights as the mother? Following your line of logic, if giving the father the same rights as the mother is "punishing children", then the mother having those rights that the father is being denied is also "punishing children." Therefore, those rights that she enjoys would have to be restricted or the child would be punished by the mother. If two wrongs don't make a right, then the original "wrong" must be prevented from occuring, or else the wrongful act will punish the child.
Summary: Feminism won't be conquered with Masculinism. It will be completed by it.
Many of us became involved in the pro-life movement through the courageous actions and writings of young warrior for Christ, Randall Terry. God's call and gifting upon this man to call the Church of Jesus Christ to repentance and move her to the very "gates of hell" were obvious for all to see. I have personally been greatly blessed by his ministry and moved to join him in the Gospel battle that is savaging our nation. He fathered many of us into the Kingdom of God and into the pro-life movement.Therefore, it is with a profound sadness that I report to you that Randall has separated from his wife and family, from his church, and from all of us who have been running the race of faith with him. It is a self-chosen path. He has been confronted time and again by those who truly love him (wonderful friends who have been battle tested over time to be true to Christ and to him) to repent and return to his first love, his wife, and his church - all to no avail! Randall has dragons to slay and funds to raise! All the while his family, his church, his testimony, and the children he has been ordained to protect, are being slain by the real dragon of his soul.
(more)
Duh? I know.
"Therefore, those rights that she enjoys would have to be restricted or the child would be punished by the mother. If two wrongs don't make a right, then the original "wrong" must be prevented from occuring, or else the wrongful act will punish the child."
Duh? again. I know. However, until that happens, legally allowing MORE punishment of BORN children is still WRONG and illogical. It is not less wrong to punish born children in some kind of bizarre payback for women having the "right" to abort. The child certainly never requested that "right" and furthermore his mother did not abort. So he's paying for the actions of other women, not his mother by being denied paternal support. Twisted logic.
What the "paper abortion" proposal would does is punishes women who DON'T ABORT and their children .... in retribution for women who DO abort. ???? Ever think about that? It doesn't make any logical sense.
This is punishing people who don't do something for the acts of those who do. Totally twisted. Kind of like gang raping a woman in as punishment for her brother committing crime or selling your children into marriage to get yourself out of jail. This is 7th Century logic that happens in places like Pakistan, Iran, Afghanistan etc. Only some are proposing laws using the exact same logic here in the USA in the 21st century!!!
I'd like to quibble. Conception is preventable. Using the word conception implies the mutual nature of the act, that both men and women can prevent.
Furthermore, the only way conception is "completely" preventable is by abstinance and even then complete abstinance, genitals never touching and fluids never exchanging. Even using contraception, it is still possible to conceive. Even people who have been surgically sterilzied can co-conceieve. (This has happened to a couple I know).
Therefore, all adults with an IQ over 70 should know that the default consequence of sex is conception and that two people are biologically complicit in every conception. Every single one. No exceptions. No whining.
In either case, it takes two to tango, and I do get tired of men complaining about it, like it was all the women's fault. And I get tired about women complaining about it, like it was all the mens' fault. To either one - keep your pants on and you won't have this problem.
Exactly. This is the only logical position regarding conception.
As for your comments (and I will try to understand that you did take the post personally and adjust accordingly):
The fact your husband has not been jailed has more to do with the fact he's now paying then anything else. Let him stop paying again and see what happens. Since he's having his tax returns seized, have him apply for a passport then get back to me.
His payments were interrupted for a time due to a number of circumstances, but those circumstances did not involve his not wanting to pay (though like many people, he had reservations about the amount he had to pay). So I don't see any need for him to stop payment. He has no need or desire to do so. Your passport comment makes no sense to me as he owes money and realizes it may as well come out of the tax return. It's almost like a separate account for the support he owes, so in a way it's to his advantage. Not all of his refund is taken.
Furthermore, I'm the first to openly acknowledge the complete lack of organized religion in my life. I attend no church, temple, mosque etc. So how is it that some pastor has told me what to believe? Do you belive a woman can not have strong opinions, backed up by facts on this issue?
Again I must point out that the post was not addressed exclusively to you. Women or men can and do have strong opinions about whatever they choose. I am the last one to deny anyone that, but I only wish that people would stop spending so much time defending their opinions (often in a cloistered environment) and more time examining them on a larger scale. Also, in a politically charged environment such as this one or any other one, facts (like STATISTICS) can be skewed. And that's putting it mildly.
It isn't possible for a person to believe abortion is wrong without being religious or basing that belief not on the fact it's the murder of a human being, but a belief in some omnipotent entity?
Sure it is. But the fact is, (and I'm probably older than you are), the idea of life beginning at conception is really a matter of religion. Certain religions teach this and others do not. In my own religion, as I've outlined, potential life is sacred--but viability, the ability to live on one's own biologically, is the determining factor. It's kind of like the fertile acorn as opposed the one that drops from the tree onto fertile soil and is able to sprout on its own. (Now I have to warn you that I'm getting pretty imaginative here and this is no "feminazi" or whacko or whatever label you might-be-tempted-to-call-it doctrine. I don't belong to any group like that and don't read any rhetoric from any group at all. This is purely my own analogy, though like many other analogies, someone has probably used it before.)
Of course it couldn't be that I've studied this issue for myself, looked at the gender wars started by so called feminist groups, read their own words of hatred against men and fathers and look at how legislation pushed by these same feminist groups have turned this country into a father-less society where fathers who want nothing more to be a part of their childs lives have little to no rights. Legislation and proposals pushed by the same groups that have turned men into walking ATM's
Here I think you are getting on a roll, and that's fine with me, except it seems a little one sided. I have some experience on both sides in these situations, so I think I can say that, at least.
The claim you make that I could not possible have my own beliefs is a typical insult used by feminists to diminish the capacity of women to have their own opinions.
Here you again have perceived that my post was to you and you alone. I made no such claim. I'm sorry if you misunderstood. As for the capacity of women...etc., I am the last one to attempt to do that. I made no specific reference to women in my post, so I don't know where that came from, except that it may have been an illogical assumption on your part.
When they contridict the typical feminist, man-hating, family-busting agenda of course it's not the woman thinking for herself, it's some outside entity turning her against the "proper" role of a woman. What an insult to the intelligence of most women on this board.
To get into name-calling and insults is really not accomplishing anything. Any woman is entitled to use her brain and her life in the way she sees fit. Why bring this kind of thing into the discussion at all? Where are you going with this? Again, my post was not addressed exclusively to you, and this may be where some of your rhetoric is coming from--and for that, if my post was misleading, I am sorry.
Exactly.
I agree in principle, and I understand and fully concur with your ideological premise.
However, what men need to realize is that they can and need to work together, not to ask for government-issued "rights", but to demand their rights as fathers and as men to be treated equally.
In primary part, this comes by way of Fathers Rights groups, news sources like mensnewsdaily.com and lobbying by groups like the ACFC.
The alternative would be surrender to the degenerate matriarchy which has wrecked havoc on this nation for decades now.
The fact is, fathers rights groups are critical to restoring society.
The battle for the soul of humankind isn't between Islam and Christianity. It isn't between Blacks and Whites, or between Anglos and non-Anglos.
It is fathers vs. feminists.
"God established patriarchy when he established the world. God established a patriarchal world, Terry said." "If we're going to have true reformation in America, it is because men once again, if I may use a worn out expression, have righteous testosterone flowing through their veins. They are not afraid of the contempt of their contemporaries. They are not here to get along. They are not even here to take issue. They are here to take over!"
--Randall Terry, 1995
Men do need to stand up for themselves, and for their rights as fathers and men.
But the answer is no more a 21st century absolute-dominance patriarchy, with women "back in the kitchen", than it is the marxist-feminist misandric matriarchy of the last 35 years.
The answer is balance, a marriage of equal rights and equal responsibilities.
There has to be a counterbalance: politicians scrambling to get the votes of men/fathers.
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.