Thursday, March 09, 2006

Children Would Benefit From Male Repoductive Rights

The National Center for Men is attempting to expose some of the logical inconsistencies of current abortion law (women have all the rights, men only have responsibilities) through a court challenge. Read about it here.

Fine, go ahead and point out the obvious. Again. But, these sorts of issues will not be settled through court challenges. Courts do what is currently politically correct while following loosely within the bounds of statutes and Constitutions. Meanwhile, the important issues of our time for men and fathers (and children too) get lost.

These issues include: Giving men some rights regarding when and how they become a father (in other words, at least some of the so-called "rights" that women currently have in abundance), unfettered access to their children, and teaching society that fatherhood and "child support" should not be confused and are not interchangeable. These issues need to reach the political realm with a much more effective message than "abortion for men." Otherwise, the message is lost on nitwit columnists such as Nicole Brodeur of the Seattle Times, who confuses the motives of South Dakota's abortion ban effort with the court challenge undertaken by the National Center for Men.

Real progress will require a real male voting block. Yes, a majority of men vote for Republicans, but most have no idea what VAWA is, how non-existent their rights are when it comes to accidental pregnancy, or how their most basic rights to parent their own children have been demolished by the gender feminist state.

A small but organized group of men within the Republican Party could hold it accountable to the male vote it takes for granted. If not, men should abandon the GOP in droves. Similarly, male dominated unions, which are major backers of Democrats, should begin to ask their party why they have spent so much political capital on gender politics while doing so little for the average working man or women. Hell, even women union members should support their unions pushing Democrats back to the basics. And, if that doesn't work, perhaps its time for a third party, as Alan Greenspan recently suggested in a speech. These are the only scenarios that will get balance back to issues such as reproductive rights.

The real message behind the National Center for Men lawsuit, and the one that needs to forcefully make its way into the political realm is simple: All kids need fathers. Sure some kids do OK without them, but they are the exceptions, not the norm. (I'd be willing to bet that there is no correlation between the success of fatherless children and payment of child support - but nobody wants to do that study because it would be too politically incorrect while also threatening the huge industry that has developed around child support collections). On average, children do best on practically every objective measure when their father is actively involved in their lives.

Because children need fathers, when a women becomes pregnant, and the father of the unborn does not want the baby, society has a compelling interest in giving him a say in what ultimately happens. If the mother will not choose abortion, and the man will not choose to be a father, no amount of "child support" payment will address or compensate for the lack of a father in the child's life.

While saying that abortion rights is about the human rights of women, people like Kim Gandy, President of NOW, will then turn around and say that men should not be able to opt out of financial responsibility for an unintended pregnancy because its "all about the the children."
The president of the National Organization for Women, Kim Gandy, acknowledged that disputes over unintended pregnancies can be complex and bitter.

"None of these are easy questions," said Gandy, a former prosecutor. "But most courts say it's not about what he did or didn't do or what she did or didn't do. It's about the rights of the child."
Really? Rights of the child? Suddenly Gandy cares about the rights of children? Obviously only when hiding behind children becomes convenient as a method of deflecting a rational discussion.

But, since Gandy mentioned them, here are some rights children should have: They have a right to a loving, caring father. A child has a right to grow up in an environment that statistically gives him or her the best opportunities in life, which means growing up in a household with a father present. They have the right to masculine protection from the evils in the world. They have the right to see male and female as complementary sides of the human race as opposed to the two sides of a viscious battle. Children have the right to see the truth about men - that they are generally good. They have the right to know that evil comes in all sexes and genders.

Of course, people like Gandy believe that lesbian households are the best environment for children. Second to lesbains in preference, in Gandy's view, are single mother households with financial support from both an excluded father and the government. But, any scholar aware of the statistics can tell you about reality. So, if we really care about the rights of the child, we should not be so wilfully encouraging single mother households and then fooling ourselves into believing that "child support" should only be seen in financial terms and can replace the love and protection of a father.

Giving a man the chance to opt out of an unwanted pregnancy brings some clarity to the situation at a critical moment for both parties to the conception. When the father opts out, the mother has a choice to make - do it on her own or put the baby up for adoption. Or, for a short while longer in some states, get an abortion. Similarly, if a woman decides to go forward with a pregnancy, the man in the equation would be forced to make a stark choice. He will have to either irrevocably decline to participate the child's life or forever accept his responsibility to that child. Few men, after facing such a choice, would be under the misperception that they can simply float in and out of the child's life, and in and out of financial responsibility, whenever he feels like it.

In most cases when the father wants to opt out, adoption is best for the child. (Comparing the general welfare and future success of adopted children to those of single mothers is another study you will never see, but we all know what the results would be). Financial-only "child support" only creates an incentive for the mother to make a sub-optimal choice.

Or, if you don't like the idea of accidental fathers opting out of unwanted pregancies, consider what is probably an even more powerful option. We should make it clear within both federal and state law that the State will hardily stand behind the right of a father to be significantly involved in the life of his child, whether born out of wedlock or not. (I can see the feminists reading this now and going apoplectic over cases of rape, but that's just a red herring. Few people believe that a rapist should ever have any rights in this regard).

In other words, ladies, if you have that child, the father will have a clear and unambiguous right to be a parent to that child, just as you have now, whether you like it or not. This means that you will need to have a relationship with the father on some level, if only for logistics, maybe for the rest of your life. This means you can not be a Move Away Mom, at least not without permission. It means the values and concerns of another person will hold sway over the upbringing of your child. So, you'd have to think twice about what it is you really want to do and how much freedom you are willing to give up in order to receive that "child support" payment.

The refusal of orthodox feminists - make no mistake that they are the women in charge of the cult - to consider even this last possibility is the reason that they receive so little support from men like me on issues such as abortion, even though I would prefer that the government stay out of the matter. Most people care about fairness, and it's become increasingly obvious that labeling men with no parental rights "Deadbeat Dads" is unfair.

While the South Dakota effort to ban abortion at first seemed ominous to me, perhaps it is about the only thing that stands a chance of forcing a reasonable discussion on the issue of father's rights. Hell, I'd settle for getting the topic on the radar screen. SD may indeed put Hillary Rodham into the White House, and for a while, things will probably get even worse. But, Supreme Court decisions last, and the Court is on equal standing to the President within the balance of powers of the three branches of government. Unless the balance of power regime of government is overthrown, a Hillary presidency would be able to do little about making abortion available in every state.

In order to do something about the immiment overthrow of Roe, abortion activists will need the support of average guys like me. But, like most people, guys like me don't get active in support of the rights of others unless we have some rights too.

2 Comments:

Blogger The Geezer said...

Iggy, right on, as usual. I wish I were half as eloquent as you.

The Geezer

3/12/2006 07:13:00 AM  
Blogger Brian H. said...

Someday?

3/14/2006 08:18:00 PM  

Post a Comment

Links to this post:

Create a Link

<< Main