Wednesday, March 15, 2006

Reproductive Rights for Men

Finally, the reproductive rights absurdity reaches a natural waypoint. Men are now challenging their parental responsibilities, even denouncing them outright. That's not really new. Some men have been deadbeats probably ever since the dawn of man. But now they're seeking the legitimacy of the law to support their abandonment.

Salon.com and a few other sites are reporting that the National Center for Men has filed a lawsuit on behalf of Matt Dubay, a Michigan man whose ex-girlfriend is having his baby against his will. Dubay says the woman assured him she was infertile, and now he wants nothing to do with the child -- or the monthly support payments he would have to make for the next 18 years. If you believe the silliness about reproductive rights -- that people should be able to decide for themselves whether or not they will become parents even after they have already conceived a child, either allowing the birth or aborting it -- then you must concede that it is a violation of men's rights to force them to become fathers when they would choose not to.

Some will say that reproductive rights have nothing to do with men, that a woman's body is hers alone, and thus the choice is hers alone. But if that's the case, why should a man be forced to fund her choice, and continue to fund it for two decades, if that choice is to have a child? If we accept the notion that men have no say in the abortion issue, that the woman has sole authority in each reproductive choice, then we must also acknowledge the fact that we have totally disenfranchised fathers. How could we expect men to father children, or support them financially, when they never had any choice in the matter?

Of course, the entire reproductive choice debate overlooks the fact that, even without abortion, men and women already have the right to choose whether or not to become parents. They can choose to engage in the act that causes reproduction, or they can choose not to. If they want to have their cake and eat it too, they can fool around and use condoms, spermacides and other contraceptives. It's risky, assuming you are actually trying to avoid becoming a parent. But it's more fun than abstinance. But these choices are not enough for the radicals who preach for women's right to kill their babies. No, women and women alone should be able to make life and death decisions that compensate for their earlier bad decisions. Got a little drunk and let Seth and Billy let loose inside you at the party? No biggie, choose to exercise your reproductive right to scrape that baby out. Had a little fun on the side and don't want the hubby to find out? There's a clinic that can make it like it never happened. Wanna keep the baby, but don't want to have to pay the whole ticket? Choose to have a man pay you for the next 18 years. It's your body, after all, and it's your right to cut part of it out or to get paid not to. You really have come a long way, baby.

http://archive.salon.com/mwt/feature/2006/03/13/roe_for_men/index_np.html

1 Comments:

At 6:59 AM, Blogger Len said...

I wholeheartedly agree with you. In Australia, a nation that aborts over 90 000 kids per year despite an inexhaustive list of prospective adoptive parents, women have a monopoly on the child's welfare. The courts regularly enforce inequitable visitation, discourage paternal testing and gear the welfare system to financially encourage the single-mother phenomenon. I am not an overly conservative religious nutjob but I do believe in personal responsibility in this age of selfish convenience.

 

Post a Comment

<< Home