Letters to the Editor
-
A Man's Right to Chose
Men, like women, should have some influence on reproductive decisions. Women do get pregnant, even when a man uses a condom correctly. Moreover, women do occasionally misinform sexual partners concerning whether they are taking appropriate birth control steps. And ... women who correctly take and use birth control get pregnant.
If I could snap my fingers and make a law, it would resemble something along the following lines: First, men should only have reproductive choice in a county of a state where a women has reproductive choice. Thus, my law would apply only in counties that have abortion providers and relatively easy access to abortion. In such counties, men would have the right to be free of child support obligations in either of the following circumstances: (1)(a) the mother knows that she is pregnant during the first 12 weeks of pregnancy; (b) the father's location (telephone number and/or address) is known to the mother; (c) the mother fails to tell the father that she is pregnant; and (d) the mother's failure to inform the father is not the result of either her own mental or physical medical condition or reasonable fear for her own safety OR (2)(a) the mother tells the father she is pregnant during the first 12 weeks of pregnancy; (b) the father provides written notification to the mother that he refuses to be financially obligated to the child; (3) the father provides sufficient resources to the mother to have a safe abortion; and (4) the father does not have a sexual relationship with the mother after he provides notification.
While society does have an interest in making sure that fathers and mothers, rather than taxpayers, support children, fathers should have some reproductive choice as well. Until we pro-choice women get men on board and provide them with some level of the same type of reproductive choice that we women desire and enjoy, we will lose men in the abortion debate who might otherwise support our pro-choice position.
-
Choice
To pretend that absolving men of their financial obligation to pay child support is promoting choice is misleading, at best, and tragic, at worst.
Although abortion remains legal (at least for now) in this country, not all women feel equally comfortable choosing abortion for themselves. To become pregnant--accidentally or otherwise--only to have one's partner hand her an affadavit signaling his unwillingness to participate in the child's upbringing will force the hand of women who might not otherwise have considered abortion. If Roe v. Wade is upheld and a resolution such as the one proposed by the gentleman in this article is passed, we provide men with the freedom to choose his level of involvement (financially daddy? twice-monthly daddy? full-time daddy?) while women may choose only between suffering and abortion, which is no choice at all.
-
RE: Roe for Men
What I don't see in this argument is whether this man has any type of relationship with this daughter he doesn't want to pay child support for. Has he even seen his child,whom he consders to be such a burden. Maybe if he made an effort to be a real father,and connect with his child as a person, rather than a bill to be paid,this suit would be different. Regardless of one's view on abortion/choice, to willfully abandon one's responsibility to a child that thay are capable of supporting is just wrong and immoral.
-
Choice for Men!
Here's the choice men have: to wear a rubber or not to wear one. If you choose not to and have sex with a woman, no matter what she tells you, you're running a huge risk, especially if you're not that into the idea of having a mini-me that you must support financially for at least 18 years. As long as we're on the subject, can we all admit that this line about how condoms aren't always a sure thing is pretty much bullshit that's pushed by the anti-sex brigade in this country. I think Bill Maher got it right when he was talking about this issue on his show on friday. Condoms are probably the most reliable product you can buy, they're easy to get, not that expensive, and work great. There's your choice.
-
Circular argument
I disagree that women are now using the same argument against men that men once used against them. To say, pre-birth control pill, that women should just avoid sex if they wanted to prevent pregnancy placed all the responsibility on women's shoulders. To say now, post-birth control pill, that men should not have to use a condom when a woman assures him that she cannot get pregnant again places the entire responsibility for avoiding pregnancy on women's shoulders. It cannot be the same when the victim remains the same though the argument is applied in the reverse. This entire debate isn't really about money, it's about responsibility. And what women get worked up about is that even now, decades after Roe v. Wade, with millions of men claiming to support a woman's right to choose, men are still trying to put the entire responsibility for sex and its consequences on women. The more things change, the more they stay the same. Until the day we realize that the babies that are born should be more important than either the male or female adult, I propose a Lysistratan solution. Women should stop having sex with men until men are ready to accept some of the responsibility for the consequences of sex - Children!
-
Babies v. People
"Until the day we realize that the babies that are born should be more important than either the male or female adult,"
Why is that true? why is it that a baby should have more rights than a full-grown, sentient adult?
"I propose a Lysistratan solution. Women should stop having sex with men until men are ready to accept some of the responsibility for the consequences of sex - Children!"
This is why we have abortion.
-
A rock and a hard place
That woman was in a terrible situation. She was told that she could not have children. Hence, a committed relationship with a man who wanted them was out of the question. She found a guy who didn't want children, liked him, and thought that there would be no conflict.
And then the miracle. If you wanted a child but had given up hope, would you really be willing to abort the child on the off chance that you would be able to conceive again, and that you would be able to find a man willing to be a responsible father in time? A man who wanted children who would take the risk that you could beat the odds again?
Abortion was not a meaningful option for her. Neither was choosing a better man. Sometimes things turn out in ways we don't expect, and the child shouldn't have to suffer because there was no way for the mother to plan for it. It's just too bad that Matt Dubay didn't have enough empathy for a woman he apparently liked enough to sleep with to step up to the plate.