Letters to the Editor
-
Maybe an insurance policy instead . . .
I am conflicted about this issue; I can understand a man feeling forced into a situation over which he has no control, and we are a society that likes to imagine we have control over our own bodies, our own lives. It's an illusory control, and quite likely none of the women involved feel they have control over their bodies and lives, but I certainly sympathize with wanting to feel that control.
Certainly if women have control over their bodies during pregnancy (a big "if," and only the case with a "normal", uncomplicated pregnancy), control over their lives is pretty much eliminated once the baby is born with its own agenda. Any responsible parenting she "chooses" will mean giving over a rather startling amount of control to the needs of the child.
So, men imagine women have choices, and that choices = control. To some extent, that's true--if a woman opts out of a pregnancy, she has controlled her body (again, assuming a normal, safe, legal abortion). Anything that means carrying the child means completely losing that control, once she's a parent if not sooner.
So, what if we gave men the "right" this group suggests they want, provided they carry an insurance policy that would step in to provide the child support (based on income as now, so as to eliminate concerns that this solution might mean a jackpot for the mom) if they signed away the responsibility to do so themselves? So, you carry this insurance, you can opt out if you wish. (Of course, like with auto insurance, I'd imagine your rates go up in a major way, so you probably don't get more than one "accident" of this sort.) No insurance policy--then you're stuck paying the support yourself. You have to be a responsible human being at multiple points in the transaction: you want no kid, you make sure that you use birth control or that you've had a conversation with a woman and you feel you can trust the answers you've been given. If that b.c. fails, you've got a back-up plan: the insurance policy. Plan B for men. Everyone wins. Guys get more choice and more control; children get the support to which they're entitled. If he signs away parental rights, the mom gets the $ but doesn't have to mess with the guy himself--but she also doesn't have to do the whole thing solo, at least financially speaking. Choices, control.
But not a free ride. That's what worries me about the option as the men's right group presents it. Lots of folks like a free ride. That doesn't mean, as responsible human beings, any of us really get that free ride.
-
Fairness?
This is interesting but talking about this issue is really just an intellectual exercise. I'm not a lawyer and I don't know the legal issues involved, but I can't imagine the courts or legislature wanting to make it possible for a man to opt out of parenthood. It has the potential to cost the government more money and it has the potential to increase abortions. In the current legal and judicial climate anything with this effect doesn't seem likely.
It seems to me that the laws right now are as fair as they can be given the biological limitation of men and women. Women carry the fetus in their bodies so they have an option, abortion, that men don't have. But other than that, the law says a man can block an adoption and can request custody and support if they want. The laws may not be applied fairly. I don't know if men are treated unfairly in issues of custody and support. If they are, that may be a place for activists to do some work. I just don't think this current law suit has any chance.
-
Maybe Have Two Levels of Support
Since the woman in this case told this man that she couldn't get pregnant, and he didn't want children with her (and the marriage that goes with that), the amount awarded to her seems a bit excessive (but not by a lot), and dependant upon the father's income more than anything else. I would suggest that father-unwanted babies be awarded child payments not to exceed the state's welfare support. However if the father wanted to be involved in the baby's up-bringing, then treat the child support as if a divorce was involved. This would mean sharing more expenses, time (weekends, summer, etc..) and getting court permission to move. To prevent guys from just impregnanting every young girl out there, he would have to demonstrate that he was aware of the birth control situation, and didn't coerce the young lady into having unprotected sex.
In my youthful days, I can remember one or two girls who told me that they were on the pill, when they really weren't (surprize!) - luckily nothing happened, but I sure dropped out of their lives really fast. ( No way was I going to have a family at nineteen!)
-
Roe for men?
This guy is a joke.
I live in the area where this guy lives. According to the local paper, this 'man' admitted in court and 'took responsibility' for the child. Now he wants to deny that?
For this little boy I have only to say that the baby didn't get there on it's own. It took TWO (2) human beings to create that child. He was one of them. The 'I can't get pregnant' line falls right along side those other clichés like 'The check is in the mail', 'I'm on the pill', 'She has a great personality' and 'It's not about the money'...
This boy-man is victimizing the woman AND the judicial system with this ridiculous lawsuit.
He should be locked up for being stupid, not honored for sticking up for cowardly fathers that would rather hide than face the consequences for the life they HELPED create.
I’m insulted that he claims to be a man when he obviously is just a little jerk that knocked up some woman and now wants to destroy her AND their child. A poster child for male stupidity and ‘testosterone thinking’, but not a victim of some ruthless woman and a 'run amok' judicial system… This is what my dad would call a ‘growing up moment’… It's time this one did.