Archive for August, 2002
The Illegitimacy of Fatherhood
Tuesday, August 20th, 2002What exactly does it mean to be a man who is pro-life? Usually, it is not much different than being a man who is pro-choice because more often than not, most women won’t accept a man’s opinion on the subject. More commonly, a man’s opinion of abortion is only relevant if his opinion is the same as theirs.
The issue of abortion is often clouded by the mind-set that it is an issue about the woman’s body, and how dare anyone tell a woman (or any person) what they can or cannot do with their own body.
People who are pro-choice believe abortion to be an issue about the women’s body. To pro-lifers, it is not. The fact is there are three people that are directly involved in this issue: the mother, and the father, and the child.
Being a man who is pro-life, it is very difficult to have a discussion on this issue with a pro-choice female without my opinion being immediately illegitimatized because I “do not have to worry about getting pregnant.” Although this is true, that men cannot bare children, to disqualify a man’s opinion totally degrades the man’s role in conceiving the child to begin with.
If a man and a woman conceive and the man chooses not to be a father, he is considered the scum of the earth – a selfish deadbeat dad. But, when a woman gets pregnant and chooses not to be a mother, she is merely exercising her right to choose. She becomes yet another poster-child of women’s rights.
It is true, that a man’s way out of a pregnancy is just to leave the woman. Women in this situation are left to either carry it to term and keep the child, or put it up for adoption; or not carry it to term and have an abortion.
Not all men are like that; contrary to popular liberal beliefs, there are men who do in fact take responsibility. Currently, men have no legal rights to have any say whatsoever in the life of their unborn child. As was shown in Stachokus v. Meyers, a recent court case in Pennsylvania.
The Associated Press article entitled “Decision Allows Woman’s Abortion” (August 5, 2002) reported that 23-year-old Tanya Meyers won the right to have an abortion that the father of her child had tried to prevent her from having. Previously, a temporary injunction had barred her from having the abortion. Judge Michael Conahan, of Luzerne County, Pennsylvania, who overturned that injunction, stated that a woman’s right to have an abortion “is not subject to being vetoed by a woman’s husband or partner … Neither an ex-boyfriend nor a fetus has standing to interfere with a woman’s choice to terminate her pregnancy.” Note that the man is referred to as the woman’s partner or ex-boyfriend, and not as the unborn child’s father.
The father of the unborn child, John Stachokus, 27 years of age, said he was willing to take full or partial custody of the child. But since Meyers doesn’t want to go through with the pregnancy, his willingness to take responsibility for the child was ruled irrelevant. Pro-choice activists probably consider him to be as evil as a man who abandons his wife or girlfriend with an unborn child.
Meyers’s lawyer said “Her right to privacy has been restored and she is free to go on with her life … It’s a great relief for her.” Of course, the woman now gets to go on with her life, but that baby, who was wanted by the father, now will never have a chance at life. Her “privacy” is more important than the life of a child who is loved and wanted by the father.
The “Findings of Fact” in this case make reference to the emotional distress suffered by Meyers in having her abortion prevented. The potential emotional distress of Stachokus, by having his child aborted, is not even considered, and therefore, as ruled by Judge Conahan, not even important.
Elizabeth Cavendish, the legal director for the National Abortion and Reproductive Rights Action League (NARAL), said “We hope this won’t encourage anti-choice advocates to misuse the litigation process to stand in the way of the execution of a woman’s constitutional rights.”
To liberals, pre-natal infanticide is a right covered by the 14th Amendment. I cannot understand how a man who wants to save the life of his child is violating the mother’s constitutional rights.
NARAL, who provided co-council in this case, refers to pro-lifers as “anti-choice activists”, once again distorting the issue of abortion to being about a woman’s right to do what she wants with her body, as opposed to it being an issue about the life of an unborn child.
Men are collectively criticized for not taking responsibility for their actions (it seems to be forgotten that it takes two people to conceive a child). If the man wants the child but the woman does not, as was the situation in Stachokus v. Meyers, by not giving his desire to keep the child any authority is hypocritical. It suggests that women have the power to impose responsibility on a man only when it is convenient – only in accordance to the woman’s decision.
By not giving the man any say whatsoever in preventing that unborn child’s life from being unnaturally ended suggests that men only need to take responsibility for their actions if the woman decides to keep the child - not if she doesn’t want to keep the child.
In Stachokus v. Meyers, the definition of “responsibility” for a man was altered from agreeing to care for and financially support the child (which Stachokus offered to do) to meaning he had to support the decision of the mother to abort the child… even though he did not want to lose his child. A woman’s “choice” is a man’s “responsibility” regardless of what the woman’s choice is.
Obviously, a man should not be able to force a woman to have an abortion if she does not want to - meaning men cannot deny women the right to motherhood. But, women can deny men the right to fatherhood. Is this because fatherhood is not as important, or not equal to motherhood? Is fatherhood merely a choice that is dependent on a superior (perhaps godlike) morality possessed by women who are with child?
Women have the power to absolve themselves of responsibility by having an abortion, while men on the other hand not only do not have that right, but also are criticized for not accepting responsibility. Yet, men are not yet given the right to accept responsibility if the mother doesn’t want them to, or doesn’t want to accept any responsibility herself.
Although the mother carries the child for nine months and endures the physical, mental, emotional, and hormonal hardships that come with it, that life inside her is not an extension of her body. It is an individual life with it’s own genetics, which come from both her and the child’s father.
We cannot change nature, women will always be the carriers of unborn children, but that does not give them the right to end the life of the unborn child anymore then the parents of a child who has been born. Before birth, it is a choice - after birth, it is a life. How is that right? The problem is, responsibility is only considered if the child is brought to term, but in reality, responsibility should be a concept considered before conception. Yes, accidents happen, but if the father is willing to accept responsibility for it, then abortion should not be an option.
I do not like being told that my opinion is invalid because of my gender. If men and women are equal, why is it that in the case of abortion, the opinions of men and women are not equal? When it comes to parenting, or at least the potential of becoming parents, the law empowers women as the superior decision makers. The recent decision in Stachokus v. Meyers devalues the man’s role in conception, and endorses the illegitimacy of fatherhood.