Reproductive Rights & Responsibilities

The National Center for Men (NCM) is filing suit in Federal court to try to establish for men the same reproductive freedom as women. After perusing their website, I have to say that while I would probably eschew any assistance these weirdos might offer with my own legal battles, I do think they have a point in this case. Women have the choice to have their child, abort the child, or give the child up for adoption at their discretion. However, biological fathers who want their child (with no strings attached) have no say if the mother decides to abort against their wishes, and biological fathers who did not choose fatherhood can be made to pay exorbitant sums to support children their former partner decided to have. A divorced Father can be denied his visitation rights, but a woman who gave up her natural child for adoption can come back years afterward and demand – and win – custody of the child. It is absolutely the truth that in regard to parenthood, men get all of the responsibility and none of the rights, and that the system is completely biased in favor giving entitlements to women at the expense of their former lovers/spouses. This is taxation without representation, and wealth redistribution in the finest traditions of socialism.

I happen to agree with diverse others that allowing men to skate out of their responsibilities as fathers is no different than allowing a woman to escape hers via abortion. As my life is my testament, if a man (intentionally or not) fathers a child, he is bound by the strongest ethical, moral and spiritual obligations to care for his offspring. To be consistent, therefore, the law should prohibit abortions of convenience. But since it bloody well doesn’t, then no man should be bound by the law to pay child support. (Ideological and philosophical consistency, however, has given us some of the most ludicrous excesses of ethical philosophy and oppressive political systems -- largely by the French, who view consistency as the test of a philosophy’s merit, no matter how idiotic the extremes).

So here’s my view on the matter of male rights and responsibilities with regard to reproduction and parenthood, based on the possible situational permutations and the following five principles:

1. The State is obligated to protect, in order of precedence, life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness.
2. Fathers and mothers must have rights to match their responsibilities; neither may have rights without responsibilities.
3. The mother’s life and health take precedence over the father’s wishes or the unborn’s life.
4. The unborn child’s life and well-being take precedence over either parent’s pursuit of happiness.
5. Neither parent may use the fact of a child’s existence or the court in a deliberate attempt to be vindictive, or to enrich himself or herself at the other’s expense.

NOTE: As for principle 5, here’s a perfect example of what I mean by vindictiveness:

Hey men of South Dakota … I think you overlooked something

Posted by BattyDem Added to homepage Tue Mar 07th 2006, 05:51 PM ET

When a woman got pregnant before abortion was legal, there was no way for her to prove beyond a shadow of a doubt who the father was. All a guy had to do was spread rumors about the girl, claim she was a slut, trash her reputation by getting a few buddies to say they slept with her or that they knew other guys who slept with her, etc. It was her word against yours and since she was a fallen woman, no one was going to believe her. She was forced to leave town for almost a year. You (or your son) simply walked away and never had to think about it again.

Remember all that sex you had in college? You never had to deal with any consequences, did you? You just assumed that you never got anyone pregnant because no one ever told you that you did. You don’t believe that abortion rights were ever an issue in your life and you don’t expect them to be an issue in your son’s life either. You taught him to be “careful” - just like you always were.

I bet it never even occurred to you that your college girlfriend may have gotten an abortion without telling you.

Well, my friends… you just eliminated choice from a woman’s life, so she’ll probably end up having a baby that was conceived while you were being “careful”. But wait … it gets better. There is now a little thing called DNA testing. The girl can PROVE the kid belongs to you (or your son).

If you’re the one who did the deed, you’ll have to pay child support and your wife will find out that you’ve been a naughty boy - which means you may end up
having to pay alimony as well. If your son did the deed, he will also be forced to pay child support, but if he’s only 14 and can’t afford to do it, you’ll be footing the bill! I bet you never thought his college fund would be spent on diapers and baby food! It looks like his Ivy League future just flew out the window, huh?

No more rumors … no more “muddying the waters” to make people think the father could be one of a dozen guys … no more walking away without a care in the world. Guys, you’re going to pay for the next 18 years … and if the girl wasn’t quite legal yet, you’ll be paying a different price!

I bet you never dreamed that controlling someone else’s body was going to be so damn expensive, did you?

How many freakin' times does this PBFH use the word "pay"? Too bad Batty Misanthrope here didn’t consider the idea that, outside of rape, it takes two to "do the deed" as she puts it, that the woman is just as responsible for getting herself knocked up as the man is for knocking her up. Tell ya what, gals: Keep your legs closed and it won’t be a problem. And guys: Keep it in your pants, and it won’t be a problem. And if you two just can’t keep your uglies separated, use birth control, both of you, for crying out loud. By the way, Batty, the DNA test works two ways, so all you little chickies looking to trap a guy or hold on to your man by getting pregnant by someone else and then telling your man that it’s his, beware. Even if it is his kid, if you sabotaged his condoms or deliberately lied and said you’re infertile, then you deserve jack spit. And if you believe that women don’t do that kind of thing, I have some beachfront property in Arizona to sell you. Surprise: some women are just as nasty and duplicitous as they say we men are. Especially women like Batty who are all about a woman’s “choice,” but want to deny men any opportunity for choice.

Woman Wants Child, Man Does Not
The man may not force a woman to have an abortion, if that is what he wants. However, the woman in such a case may not sue for or expect child support, and the man must terminate forever any and all parental rights to the child. She could have kept her legs together as easily as he could have kept it in his pants. In cases where fraud is involved, the party attempting to defraud the other must face severe penalties.

Man Wants Child, Woman Does Not
If the man wants to keep the child and the woman does not, insofar as it cannot be proven that the man would be an unfit or abusive parent, the woman must have the child and surrender it to the man after birth, and terminate forever any and all parental rights to the child. In return, the man must pay all medical bills associated with the prenatal care and childbirth, and a one-time sum as the court may find appropriate as reasonable compensation for the woman’s loss of pay, benefits, and mental and physical suffering as may be associated with the pregnancy and birth. In sum, if the man wants the child, the value of that child’s life to the biological father and the interest of the State in protecting life together necessarily supercede the biological mother’s right to privacy; however, the mother must be equitably compensated for the pregnancy and birth. If at any time the pregnancy or birth is determined with medical certainty to be an extreme risk to the life or subsequent good health of the mother, then the pregnancy may be terminated regardless of the fathers’ interest.

That’s right Batty. That child’s life has value, and your inconvenience doesn’t matter. Maybe if you’d used birth control or kept your knickers up where they belong, you wouldn’t be so dang inconvenienced.

Neither Wants Child
I fall back on my criteria for determining when the State must prohibit abortion (third trimester, healthy mother, healthy fetus). If these three conditions apply, the mother must have the baby, and the baby must be placed for adoption. When the baby is adopted, both biological parents terminate forever any and all parental rights to the child. Until such time, both parents shall be required equally to pay child support to the agency providing for the care of the baby. The biological father must be informed of the pregnancy and given his say in the ultimate decision. The mother may not, on pain of criminal prosecution, keep the fact of the pregnancy a secret from the biological father unless it can be shown that so informing him creates a threat to the life of the mother and/or the life of the fetus.

Come on, Batty. There’s plenty of good people wanting and waiting to adopt. Try thinking of someone beside yourself for a femtosecond.

Both Want Child
If married or cohabiting … case closed
If unmarried and not cohabitating, or if divorcing … custody case just like in any divorce

Basically, I think men in this country get a raw deal regularly, thanks to the cowardice of lawmakers and judges before the shrill bleating and ranting of a bunch of Feminazis, who in true leftist fashion think only of demanding rights and power, all the while abrogating their own responsibilities and screaming for the state to redistribute the wealth of those who have worked hard to earn it to lazy, undeserving snags and whiners. Of course, the radical right helps out by its insistence on wanting simple, one-size-fits-all solutions (no abortion, no birth control except abstinence) to complex human situations and circumstances. Less ideology, and more principled pragmatism is what is needed these days.