Letters to the Editor
-
The system is unfair because biology is unfair
Why don't we just pay money to everybody who has children so the men who are actually responsible for them don't have to? Isn't that what this is about?
If men can unilaterally terminate their financial responsibilities, I suppose women could too, since that is only "equal". I guess that leaves society holding the bag again. Note this has nothing to do with adoption, where both natural parents are involved unless the father cannot be found.
I am curious how this proposed system would actually work. For all those men who would potentially make an "up or down vote" on their obligations toward their offspring, how many would sign away their financial responsibility and then turn around and try to insinuate themselves into some sort of relationship with the child? Could the custodial parent retaliate on the grounds the father disclaimed his rights, or does the child's interest in a relationship with his/her father win the day? Does the child lose inheritance rights, too? A return to de facto illegitimacy? Do we end up with more weepy tales from Men's Rights Activists about womenfolk who won't allow a father access to his own offspring?
What we have is the best unsavory alternative among ever more unsavory alternatives. The sexes are not equal in biology; they are equal in their right to bodily self-determination. Since pregnancy takes place in a woman's body this means the system is unfair. Neither is it fair to deny a child the right to parental support when a parent is available. Neither is it fair for one person to force another to undergo or not undergo an invasive medical procedure based on economic blackmail.
-
Unpractical
Should men have a say whether or not they have a child? Absolutely. Should the woman who falsely said that she could not get pregnant be flogged? Sure.
Ideally, anyone (male or female) who does not want to have a child will use birth control so an unplanned pregnancy would not occur. From the fact that there are first trimester abortions, this obviously does not happen. When one of these pregnancies occur, a decision needs to be made as to whether the pregnancy is carried to term.
As I see it, if the woman decides not to go through with the pregnancy, that is the end of the discussion. Pregnancy is too hard on a willing woman - at least on this willing woman - to force it on someone. On the other hand, if the woman decides to have a baby, currently the man is stuck. This guy is claiming that the man should have a say in the matter and in an ideal world, he would. But in reality, if a law passed giving the guy until the 2nd trimester to back out of his responsibility, a woman like the one involved in the story will "go on vacation" for a month until it is too late. This guy could not have gotten out of paying money. He does not have to spend time with the child, just call the $500 a month an expensive lesson and go about his life. I bet he will wear condoms from now on.
-
Hey fatass!
"They get to sacrifice the lives of their innocent children instead. For the sake of nothing more than convenience --- how noble. After all, they can't let that lump of tissue interfere with their fabulous lifestyles and consequence-free sex!"
I see Eric Theodore Cartman has all the wisdom of his animated namesake!
-
I'm biased toward women ...
... because I've been pregnant twice, and neither time the man who caused the pregnancy showed any inclination to support the resulting child. The first time I fought the father (my ex-husband) in court for sixteen years to get court-ordered support; the second time, I made the emotionally and physically painful decision to abort and have my tubes tied to prevent any further pregnancies.
My child was willingly fathered in a marriage -- he pushed me to get pregnant but lost interest when faced with an actual child. I took full financial responsibility for resolving the second pregnancy, as I'd been foolish enough to believe my sexual partner when he claimed to have had a vasectomy (and stuck to that story even when confronted with the results of a pregnancy test).
Even with both partners using birth control, pregnancy is a possibility, and operations don't always work (I know three women who've gotten pregnant after tubal ligations). The only guaranteed method of non-pregnancy is a woman having a hysterectomy, and those are hard to come by nowadays, as doctors are unwilling to perform or insurers pay for them unless mandated by medical necessity -- and unwanted pregnancies don't fall under that category (I asked for one when pregnant the second time and am still fighting to have one 12 years later, but have been told time and again that having difficult periods and not wanting to risk pregnancy isn't sufficient justification for surgical removal of my uterus). And some women, when faced with carrying a child, are just not willing to undergo an abortion, a decision I can truly understand.
So, unless a 100% guaranteed form of male birth control is invented, men should still have to assume financial responsibility for an unwanted pregnancy. It may seem unfair, but then again, is it fair for a woman to have to give up her life to a child she didn't plan to bear? The costs go both ways and far exceed simple dollars.
-
it's about time
I'm a liberal who supports full abortion rights for women. I also believe that if a woman wishes to keep a baby, that is her right. But with that right comes responsibilities. If a woman can abort against the man's wishes, then the man should be relieved of financial and legal responsibility for the child if the woman chooses, against the man's will, to keep it. This is simple, equitable fairness -- so fair and so obvious that I can't believe there's any controversy.
-
Worthless claptrap
Next this guy will wearing a dress like that annoying little spaniel who appeared on all the talk shows in a beard and a dress prattling on about "men's liberation."
What this ignorant bunch is calling for is man's right to be a dishonorable cad. Look, he had sex. Even with a condom, one of the problems you have to admit is, she might get pregnant. In the old days, a shotgun marriage was called for. Well, maybe not now, but the economic burden is still there, Mr. Playboy. In no way does a woman's right not to bring the child to term equate to men having a "choice" of whether or not to pay for their children. They don't have to marry the girl, fine. That's the end of their choice. If the child is born, they're responsible for it. Period. Fathers support the child, whether they intended the girl to get pregnant or not. Any other argument is equivalent to this: if you trick me into it, or if you want to have an abortion, or do something mean to me, boohoo, I'm off the hook! Your child will be an economic bastard, in the true sense of the word. Nope. Not in my United States of Manhood.
By the way, I'm a man. A long time ago, I married the girl. It didn't work out perfectly, but at least I tried to be a man. What are these guys? They make me want to take out my shotgun and march them up to city hall. Worthless masturbating fools.