Political Crossfire Forums

bubblybuddy · Joined: 07 Feb 2006 Posts: 457 Location: Massachusetts

http://www.boston.com/news/globe/editorial_opinion/oped/articles/2006/03/23/the_obligation_of_unwanted_fatherhood/

The obligation of unwanted fatherhood
By Jeff Jacoby, Globe Columnist | March 23, 2006

REAL MEN - good men - take responsibility for the children they father. If they get a woman pregnant, they do the right thing: They stand by her. They support their child. They don't try to weasel out of a situation they co-authored. They shoulder the obligations of fatherhood, even if they hadn't planned on becoming a father. Once upon a time, men confronted with news of an unintended pregnancy knew what was expected of them. Often they married the woman who was carrying their child; for those tempted to behave irresponsibly, society devised the shotgun wedding. Women, too, knew what was expected of them. They tended to be very careful about sex. If they didn't always wait until they were married, they waited for a relationship that seemed to be marriage-bound.

It wasn't a perfect system, and it didn't guarantee perfect happiness, but on the whole it was realistic: It recognized that sex has consequences. It bound men to the women they impregnated and made sure that children had dads as well as moms.

But the old code was swept away by the Sexual Revolution. With the Pill and easy abortion came the illusion of sex without consequences. Pregnancy could be avoided or readily undone. Men didn't have to marry women they impregnated; women didn't have to reserve themselves for men who were committed or whose intentions were honorable. With the devaluation of sex came the devaluation of fatherhood. Men got used to the idea of sex without strings. So did women, many of who also got used to the idea of motherhood without husbands. Government helped, too, mandating welfare benefits for unmarried moms, and child-support checks from "deadbeat dads." With the incentives for marriage weaker than ever, more and more children were born out of wedlock. In 1950, just 4 percent of births were to unmarried mothers. By 1980, the rate was more than 18 percent. It stands today at nearly 36 percent. All this is bad enough. Comes now Matt Dubay with a proposal to make things worse.

A 25-year-old computer programmer in Michigan, Dubay wants to know why it is only women who have "reproductive rights." He is upset about having to pay child support for a baby he never wanted. Not only did his former girlfriend know he didn't want children, says Dubay, she had told him she was infertile. When she got pregnant nonetheless, he asked her to get an abortion or place the baby for adoption. She decided instead to keep her child and secured a court order requiring him to pay $500 a month in support.

Not fair, Dubay complains. His ex-girlfriend chose to become a mother. It was her choice not to have an abortion, her choice to carry the baby to term, her choice not to have the child adopted. She even had the option, under the "baby safe haven" laws most states have enacted, to simply leave her newborn at a hospital or police station. Roe v. Wade gives her and all women the right - the constitutional right! - to avoid parenthood and its responsibilities. Dubay argues that he should have the same right, and has filed a federal lawsuit that his supporters are calling "Roe v. Wade for men." Drafted by the National Center for Men, it contends that as a matter of equal rights, men who don't want a child should be permitted, early in pregnancy, to get "a financial abortion" releasing them from any future responsibility to the baby.

Does Dubay have a point? Of course. Contemporary American society does send very mixed messages about sex and the sexes. For women, the decision to have sex is the first of a series of choices, including the choice to abort a pregnancy - or, if she prefers, to give birth and collect child support from the father. For men, legal choices end with the decision to have sex. If conception takes place, he can be forced to accept the abortion of a baby he wants - or to spend at least the next 18 years turning over a chunk of his income to support a child he didn't want.

All true. But it is also true that predatory males have done enormous damage to American society, and the last thing our culture needs is one more way for men to escape accountability for the children they father. Dubay wants more than the freedom to be sexually reckless - he wants that freedom to be constitutionally guaranteed. Truly he is a child of his time, passionate on the subject of rights and eager to duck responsibility.

The culture used to send a clear message to men in Dubay's position: Marry the mother and be a father to your child. Today it tells him: Just write a monthly check. Soon -- if this lawsuit succeeds -- it won't say even that. The result will not be a fairer, more equal society. It will be a society with even more abortion, even more exploitation of women, even more of the destructiveness and instability caused by fatherlessness.

And, in some ways saddest of all, even more people like Matt Dubay: a boy who never learned how to be a real man.

X-Shocker · Joined: 22 Feb 2006 Posts: 167 Location: All around you

"I am a c-o-c-k which climbs up on heaps of dung and crow."

All I can say is Dubay will think twice the next time he wants to let the cum fly. :lol: :lol: :lol:

WsTxRedRaider06 · Joined: 23 Mar 2006 Posts: 146 Location: Lubbock, Texas

Quote: And, in some ways saddest of all, even more people like Matt Dubay: a boy who never learned how to be a real man.

I almost gave this last line a standing ovation......almost :)

I got to thinking.....which isn't always a good idea, but we'll roll with it this time :wink:

I'm pro-life.....So when it comes to abortion, or ANY issue for that matter that has a child involved, unborn or not, I side with the innocent. With the child. I feel we should protect the innocent, and that includes children whether they are born or not IMO. We have a responsibility to secure the blessings of freedom for ourselves, and our posterity.....

But what if you're pro-choice. Now I don't think many people, pro-choice, pro-life, pro-whatever would stand up and say this guy is right. In principle, he might have a small point about gender equality, but if you are one who is for this lawsuit, then you fall into the category of people thats quoted above. But if youre pro-choice, when it comes to abortion, youre all about womens rights. Right? Its all about the woman, and her right to bodily privacy, and to chose whether or not to carry a baby to term. Siding with the woman when it comes to abortion, wouldnt it make sense that the pro-choice stance would be with the man, and no regard for the child.

My big thing with abortion, is potential. Potential viability. Potential life. A potential walking, breathing, screaming at the top of their lungs, child. But dosent the pro-choice stance ignore that? When it comes to abortion, it dosent matter what it is going to be, for now its just a "blob". So when in this so called "blob" stage, wouldnt the pro-choice stance side with this guy?

Demonic Spoon · Joined: 20 Sep 2004 Posts: 6939 Location: Ohio

THat's just friggin rediculous.

If the WOMAN makes the decision to keep the child and not to adopt/abort, then HOW THE HELL is it the man's fault?

sgtshortness · Joined: 17 Mar 2006 Posts: 82

The man made the decision to have sex and therefore should taket he consequences -- that's the main point of the people for men paying child support.

Not that I actually think this -- I'm so far undecided, but that's the arguement against you.

Korimyr the Rat · Joined: 11 Jan 2006 Posts: 983 Location: Wyoming

Family obligations revolve around social relationships. This man has no obligation to his former girlfriend, and he has never asserted any parental claims towards the child; in fact, I would probably be correct in assuming that his former girlfriend does not want him to exercise any "parental obligation" except to provide her with money.

This is precisely why marriage exists as a legal institution-- in order to ensure that social claims of parental rights and responsibilities are legally supported.

Saf · Joined: 23 Mar 2006 Posts: 377

sgtshortness wrote: The man made the decision to have sex
With a woman who told him that she was infertile. Totally different situation.

bubblybuddy · Joined: 07 Feb 2006 Posts: 457 Location: Massachusetts

Well, we only have his word that this woman told him she was infertile. But it is a tough call because how can he prove that?

But, the entire op-ed piece gives me pause for thought about the road we have traveled since R v W. I agree that people no longer consider the possibility of creating a child when they have sex. I also tend to agree that the ease with which women can get an abortion has taken away all premise of personal responsibility and accountability.

If he is telling the truth, then he is getting a raw deal, but who ever said life is fair? It's a harsh lesson to learn about the reprocussions of promiscous sex. Maybe he'll think twice before engaging in unprotected sex in the future.

bubblybuddy · Joined: 07 Feb 2006 Posts: 457 Location: Massachusetts

One other thing; I also think his story is the exception, not the rule. There are just far too many single moms living in poverty for me to believe that men are stepping up to the plate when they create unwanted babies.

Hume · Joined: 24 Mar 2006 Posts: 5 Location: Massachusetts

"The man made the decision to have sex and therefore should taket he consequences -- that's the main point of the people for men paying child support. "

The woman makes the decision as well, and is thus also bound to take care of the child. The only difference occurs in that only the woman is given the ability to end this obligation. Why is it that the woman gets to decide if they both become bound to this child or not? They are both equal in action, in obligation; why is the woman given more rights?

"But, the entire op-ed piece gives me pause for thought about the road we have traveled since R v W. I agree that people no longer consider the possibility of creating a child when they have sex. I also tend to agree that the ease with which women can get an abortion has taken away all premise of personal responsibility and accountability."

Apparently, this is only true for the woman. The man still has the responsibility and accountability to the child as he cannot chose to have an abortion; only the woman has the ability to remove these obligations. Fair?

"If he is telling the truth, then he is getting a raw deal, but who ever said life is fair? It's a harsh lesson to learn about the reprocussions of promiscous sex. Maybe he'll think twice before engaging in unprotected sex in the future."

I agree, life is unfair. However, can we also agree that when there is unfairness, we, as a decent society, should to all in our ability to right this wrong?

He doesn't want to the baby. He never thought there was any possibility of a child being born. Where has he accepted the consequences? Why is only the woman given the right to sever their obligations? It is sexual discrimination for only the woman to be given this ability.

X-Shocker · Joined: 22 Feb 2006 Posts: 167 Location: All around you

Matt Dubay is not getting a raw deal: $500 a month is nothing to a computer tech. $500 a month does not cover a decent lifestyle for baby. What he is complaining about is how he will have to have a few less drinks after work.

Pro-choice is for women only, not for some "loser" boyfriend who decides he does not want any responsibility with the child. If he didn't want to take the chance of producing, he should have slapped on a condom and buy her some pills or get a vasectomy.

Some women are semi-infertile and she may have been misdiagnosed. The human body is an amazing architecture and miracles happens all the time, concerning the human body.

This is just a loser's way of washing responsibility from his irresponsible sex style.

"Honey, I get a lesser bang when I use condoms."lol: :lol: :lol:

Hume · Joined: 24 Mar 2006 Posts: 5 Location: Massachusetts

X-Shocker wrote: Matt Dubay is not getting a raw deal: $500 a month is nothing to a computer tech. $500 a month does not cover a decent lifestyle for baby. What he is complaining about is how he will have to have a few less drinks after work.

That's not a viable argument and you know it. You can't say to someone "you don't need this money badly so pay up"; that sounds distinctly socialist.

X-Shocker wrote:
Pro-choice is for women only, not for some "loser" boyfriend who decides he does not want any responsibility with the child. If he didn't want to take the chance of producing, he should have slapped on a condom and buy her some pills or get a vasectomy.

Why do only women get to chose? The woman chooses not to have he baby, we respect that decision. If the man decides he doesn't want the baby "oh hes a dead beat, he's a loser". It's a distinct double standard. I agree he could have done more to prevent the child from being born; however, he was told that it was an impossibility. And I still find it to be wrong that a woman can opt out of the child months after conception, while the man loses all choice right at that moment.

X-Shocker wrote: Some women are semi-infertile and she may have been misdiagnosed. The human body is an amazing architecture and miracles happens all the time, concerning the human body.

I don't feel like dealing with this issue since it is case specific. Bottom line is both were stupid not to use further protection; I'm more concerned with the rights of the father matching those of the mother.

X-Shocker wrote:
This is just a loser's way of washing responsibility from his irresponsible sex style.

No, this is just a decent man wanting the same rights as his partner concerning the birth of his child.

WsTxRedRaider06 · Joined: 23 Mar 2006 Posts: 146 Location: Lubbock, Texas

Hume wrote: X-Shocker wrote: Matt Dubay is not getting a raw deal: $500 a month is nothing to a computer tech. $500 a month does not cover a decent lifestyle for baby. What he is complaining about is how he will have to have a few less drinks after work.

That's not a viable argument and you know it. You can't say to someone "you don't need this money badly so pay up"; that sounds distinctly socialist.

X-Shocker wrote:
Pro-choice is for women only, not for some "loser" boyfriend who decides he does not want any responsibility with the child. If he didn't want to take the chance of producing, he should have slapped on a condom and buy her some pills or get a vasectomy.

Why do only women get to chose? The woman chooses not to have he baby, we respect that decision. If the man decides he doesn't want the baby "oh hes a dead beat, he's a loser". It's a distinct double standard. I agree he could have done more to prevent the child from being born; however, he was told that it was an impossibility. And I still find it to be wrong that a woman can opt out of the child months after conception, while the man loses all choice right at that moment.

X-Shocker wrote: Some women are semi-infertile and she may have been misdiagnosed. The human body is an amazing architecture and miracles happens all the time, concerning the human body.

I don't feel like dealing with this issue since it is case specific. Bottom line is both were stupid not to use further protection; I'm more concerned with the rights of the father matching those of the mother.

X-Shocker wrote:
This is just a loser's way of washing responsibility from his irresponsible sex style.

No, this is just a decent man wanting the same rights as his partner concerning the birth of his child.

While in principle, I would agree.....We're talking about a child. The decision was made to engage in consensual sex. In principle, the man should have the same rights, as the woman, no question about it. However, in this case, and even in cases of abortion, I believe the life, potential life, and life of the child as its born, should supersede all rights that the two consenting adults think they are entitled to. While he is fighting to have the same reproductive rights as the woman does, he should be fighting to ensure that this child has the best life possible. In other words, the point of concern in this situation should not be the rights of the man, but the life of the child.