Posted on 10/25/2005 6:49:51 PM PDT by Rays_Dad
I would like to pose a couple questions to the minds of Free Republic. My brother Josh, posed these to me and I have been stuck on them ever since.
Digest and discuss:
In an age of a woman’s unfettered access to abortion, why does the state require a man provide child support when the baby is born? Consider:
1. There is no legal statue that gives a man legal access to the un-born child. Thus the man has no say whether or not the baby is brought to term. 2. Most consider abortion a private matter dealing with a women’s reproductive health, why then does it become “community property.” I use that term because I can not figure out a better one. But consider this, the woman, if I am not mistaken, has the ability to choose the baby’s last name and decide whether or not the father is listed on the birth certificate.
Now there is no denying that hundreds of unborn children are killed every day in the guise of a women’s right to choose. Naturally this is no crime, rather a act praised by many. Now answer the following:
Is there culpability when a person murders a pregnant female considering the on-demand access to abortion?
1. The current statute is a person can and will be tried for the murder of two people. 2. How can the American standard be an unborn fetus is a baby if it is murdered, but it is a pre-life mass if it is aborted.
"In an age of a woman’s unfettered access to abortion, why does the state require a man provide child support when the baby is born? Consider:"
I suspect the legal difference is that the baby gets rigths after what the court considers to the point of viability... it's ironic from several different points of view.
It all hinges on what the mother wants. And I suppose as far as your first question goes, the mother's health blah blah blah, but after the child is born the state has an interest in trying to make sure that the child is financially taken care of.
All men should have a moral obligation to support their children despite what evils others may commit. IMO
Nobody wants an aborted baby.
We live in a magical fairy tale legal world, where babies are like velveteen rabbits that only become real if they are loved.
The man has been getting the dirty end of this stick for so long no one can remember when it started. Divorce, Child support , custody, Alimony?? If you dont want to pay keep your zipper up.
Certainly I agree.
However, I suspect that the bias in the courts toward the mother make this an unpleasant situation for men. They don't get the benefit of having the child in their life, yet they must pay for it.
End result: the number of men who have a positive view of abortion ("it might help me dodge a bullet") is increased. I suspect that the Left punishes fathers as a way of increasing the political attractiveness of abortion among men.
Certainly, if one cared about the child, one would want to help the father and mother share the parenting roles in a mutually beneficial manner. The fact that this is skewed so much that the father is almost always given a bad deal does not benefit the child, or the mother, or the father. So what's the motivation? Political support for abortion is increased!
Your points are well taken. There should be a provision in all abortion laws that married men must consent to thier wives abortion, barring any other medical complications or rape.
For unmarried potential fathers, it is more complicated. They should at least have the right to be heard on the issue of aborting a life they helped create.
There is a good chance that this argument may present an avenue in which to attack current abortion laws as being unconstitutional, and unnecessarily discriminatory against men because of their sex, men who are immorally viewed as simple drones and financial resources in the eyes of femino-nazi based law.
That is the most profound and insightful thing I have ever heard on the subject.
Thanks dead, that was spot on.
Regards,
GtG
Because men have not stood up for their rights. Ya'll need a march on washington burn your undies and demand equal treatment under the law. I'm dead serious. Women need to stand up for their sons.
"why does the state require a man provide child support when the baby is born? "
Maybe its because there are expenses that start to occur after the child is born, one could argue expenses begin during pregnancy for health care, but the health care is an optional expense, while it would be mandatory to feed and shelter the baby after it was born and sorry to say men, you get stuck with that bill due to tradition as being the gender to provide food and shelter, whether the mother is better qualified for this job or not.
What I want to know, why isn't this legal empowerment that woman are accused of having ever really offered to young women... those young women in the womb? If it is really about choices for women and if woman do really have more say in the matter, then why are woman babies aborted as often as male babies, as if either gender has any choice in the matter?
Post of the week material here.
(Hey, who used to do that post of the week thing? I remember getting it once, but now I can't remember who I got it from.)
Yes, that was my own observation. It's an absurd truth in this culture.
Everyone
Thank you so much for replying. I have been struggling with this for about a week now. I will reply to individual posts tomorrow, I have a physics test that I must study for. Once again thank you for your responses.
Chip
Hmm. Very profound and thought provoking.
Because the Supreme Court in 1973 (the same court that gave us Roe v. Wade) declared the support statutes of all 50 states unconstitutional in Gomez vs. Perez.
The common law was that any child born to a married woman was by law the child of her husband, and that any child born to an unmarried woman had no father.
The mistake here is in assuming that there is a logical answer to an illogical proposition. It is totally illogical for the state to allow the most vulnerable to die when their first charge is to protect life and property.When you begin with this premise there is no logical end.
The short answer is if the owner of the fetus planned on taking to term then it is a double murder. The complicated answer is that the honorable members of congress passed this law to a: make damn sure people who kill pregnant women get their just comupance and b: get their foot in the door to rid the country of abortion.
On the first bit - men just simply get a raw deal. Men buy the drinks, rent the limos, rent the hotel rooms, buy dinner, and then pay for the illegitimate kids and housing for a woman they only slept with once, yet they get no respect. On the other hand, a working single mom with two kids in daycare that "my babies father" pays for is "empowered".
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.