Letters to the Editor

• @Allie: thanks

  [Read the article: A man's right to choose in Ohio]
  [Read more letters about this article: Here]

  Thanks, Allie for putting it so succinctly -- when trolls want to bash older women in their 40s and 50s, they dance around crowing that "biology rules, older women are all dried up and undesirable and nobody can do a thing to change that!" but when it comes to the same kind of "rules" that determine control over a pregnancy, then they howl that "fathers deserve equal rights".

  The reality is that, for right now, biology is not even-steven fair. Men have an extra 10-15 years to father a genetically-healthy child, but women have a second option after contraception fails (or isn't used), which is to abort a pregnancy.

  A man's last chance to say "no, I don't want a baby" is when he has the option to use a condom (and spermicide, I hope) before having sexual intercourse. If he fails to do this, then he is on very shaky ground claiming he wants control of another adult human being's body for nine months! Men who desire condomless sex over potential parenthood, or who rely on a partner using low-dose birth control pills (perhaps a partner who is very young, unreliable, or who they hardly even know), are men who are pretty much asking to be fathers of babies they don't want.

  None of this is remotely about parental deception, however. That's a big topic, and it would be great if Salon did a comprehensive piece on it, but till then it is absurd that trolls hijack every discussion of abortion or child support to divert the dialogue to it. (For the record, I believe firmly that fathers who are deliberately deceived, and later exonerated by DNA, should be released from child support obligations.)

  BTW, I am a native Ohian, and sadly this state has a lot of nutjobs in it (2004 election snafu, anyone?). Not that other states like Kansas (intelligent design?) don't have a few as well! But realistically, as the article clearly states at the end, wacko bills like this do not really stand a chance of being passed in the Ohio legislature. They would be an expensive nightmare to administer, even if they are supported by anti-abortion extremists.

  Another issue that keeps coming up is child support, which is really what the troll-slobbering all comes down to. A significant amount of the child support awarded in courts (which as stated a number of times is mostly for divorces and not unmarried moms) is NEVER collected -- about 40%. And a lot of it is very small change. The article quoted by Parson Jim is both misleading and depressing. Most states will NEVER award child support that exeeds 30% of a man's income, no matter how many children he has fathered. So the example of a man who is left with $38 sound suspicious at best. It also shows that women who have children by men who are very low income earners are in serious economic jeopardy -- the subject was paying $108 a week to support his kids! Hey you trolls -- I'd like to see ANY of you feed, house and clothe two children on a hundred bucks a week! Then you can talk something other than hot air.

  I am genuinely puzzled about what the trolls out there sincerely want: children who are not supported whatsoever by the men who fathered them? Does that really sound fair to you? Fair that some guys should get to enjoy sex, impregnate their partner and then waltz away from the children that result? I mean, isn't it obvious to you trolls that when dads take a hike in this manner, the children involved end up on ADC, food stamps, Section 8 and all manner of other public aid, and thus YOU THE STUPID TROLLS will end up paying for them? There are no free rides in life, my friend! Someone has to pay for the material needs of babies and children, and if it is not 1/2 of their parental units, then who the hell is it going to be? The Magic Flying Spaghetti Monster?

  Permalink Thursday, August 2, 2007 06:56 AM