Just Say No!
This issue is not even CLOSE to the same thing as Roe V. Wade!
http://www.cnn.com/2006/LAW/03/08/fatherhood.suit.ap/index.html
Some men are apparently up in arms about finding a way to terminate their paternal rights (read: not have to pay child support). Excuse me? Men's groups, I'd like to introduce you to human biology; only women can get pregnant, and typically only as the result of a man having sex with her. If you don't want to accept the consequences of possibly having a child, then don't sleep around with people you don't know well enough to raise a child with, use protection (better yet, get sterilized), or just don't have sex!
One of the poorest classes of people in this county is single mothers (and their children). "Poverty rates are highest for families headed by single women, particularly if they are black or Hispanic. In 2004, 28.4 percent of households headed by single women were poor." http://www.npc.umich.edu/poverty/#4
It's hard enough to get some men to pay child support, having a law that exempts them would only make it worse for their children. How many men wouldn't opt out if they could?
About 10 years ago, a woman that worked for me had a brother that lived in Chicago. He had 5 or 6 kids (at that time) ALL by DIFFERENT women. He paid no support to any of them. Someone else mentioned to me the other day a guy who has 59 children. Holy crap!
Part of being an adult is being responsible for consequences of one's actions. One of the possible (intended or unintended) results of sex is pregnancy and childbirth. Men can run away, but women are left holding the bag.
DO NOT support any version of this kind of law. The whole idea makes me want to puke.
posted by Phaedra @ 12:29 PM
3 Comments:
I don't totally disagree with you... but:
If it takes to to make baby... shouldn't we somehow acknowledge the rights of the father to have or not to have the child? I know it IS the woman's body invovled in the pregnancy, but after conception, should the father have say in any decisions?
Unfortunately, biology really plays a role here.
If the woman chooses to have the baby, the man can be a good father and help raise the child (with or without being a partner to the woman) or he can be absent, but financially assist.
Once the baby is born the woman doesn't get to "opt out" and it's bullshit for men to think that they can. I know some people will get excited about the idea of adoption here, but if a baby is ANYTHING other than 100% healthy and white, then there isn't much of an adoption market out there.
The right the father has is to not get a woman pregnant. Get sterilized! Use condoms and spermicide! Be sexual without having sex! These are some fabulous options. But financially opting out would be devastating to a population that is already one of the poorest groups out there.
Like I said, I don't disagree...
You're right. It is a serious social problem, that needs to be solved, rather than made worse, as this legislation could potentially lead to more abandonment.
I know I would do the right thing if I were in this situation, and there are certainly guys out there that would abuse a law like this...
It just doesn't feel right to me though.. if the argument is that it takes two to concieve, there need to be some sort of equivelent male rights... what if the woman doesn't want the child... and the man does? It would seem absurd to force a woman to have a child....
Maybe biology has painted us into a corner here...
Post a Comment
<< Home