« More Links… | Home | Ignoring History »
The Illegitimacy of Fatherhood
By Matt Margolis | June 11, 2003
Emperor Misha made a post on his site today about abortion. This is a topic I have to honestly say has not been in the forefront of my mind lately. To be specific, I haven’t thought much about it since this summer. I actually wrote it then too.
Personally, I’m not one to get into the “when does life begin?” debate. It is one ideological aspect of the debate, which I rarely see brought up by the biggest “pro-choice” entities. It’s always the “privacy” and “woman’s rights” issue which is such a weak argument. The “when does life begin” question is probably one of the strongest areas for debate on the issue. However, Misha explained well about that part which I must say sums up the right side of that issue very well.
So, after reading Misha’s blog on the issue, I was reminded of my article from this past summer on the topic of abortion, and thought I’d post it in my blog. It is (or will be again) avaialable for read elsewhere on my site - I’ll post it for the purpose of hearing what you have to say about what I wrote. I really think that the perspective I took is one rarely discussed.
Without further ado.
The Illegitimacy of Fatherhood
by Matthew Margolis
August 20, 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.
I’d love to hear your thoughts.
Topics: The Right Idea |
Related Posts:
June 11th, 2003 at 10:43 pm
I’ve read that teen fathers are generally run off for causing the problem in the first place. They’re not exactly the most welcome people at the girl’s parents house, and their attempts to get involved with the child are often rejected. Of course, considering the way many male teens look these days, I can see why they might not look like father material.
June 12th, 2003 at 7:52 pm
I could not possibly agree with you more and have, in fact, had this arguement with, “friends” when we’ve debated abortion. (most of the time it’s because they have had one…because it was an inconvenience, “I wasn’t ready”…grrrr…) and I, though not a man, but standing up for the men, have been shot down just the same. It is b.s. and it is unfair and it should NOT be the right of the female to abort if the man wants to care for and raise the baby. Hypocritical INDEED!
June 13th, 2003 at 7:36 pm
That was a great article. I am a woman and tho I am pro-life, I honestly didn’t put too much thought into the opinion of the guy. It was always about the baby to me. Shame on me. A guys opinion, does matter… cause baby it takes two to tango! Those were some excellent points. Definately changed my way of thinking.
June 17th, 2003 at 11:50 am
Sometimes it seems that men made a mistake in granting women (like me) rights. Maybe it was better when men where assumed to be in charge of their children. Maybe it was better when women couldn’t vote? It sometimes seems women don’t do a very good job with their rights.
Strange thoughts to have today.
June 20th, 2003 at 2:31 am
Hey Matt, saw your comment on my LiveJournal. I got it from your link in the comments from Misha’s site. I thought it was a very accurate and well thought out piece. You’re right on about there being a double standard in this country. But remember, these are the same hypocrites who try to save the trees and animals, along with murderous scum on death row, while in the same breath screaming about how we must protect the “right” of women to murder babies for the crime of having been conceived.
Keep up the good work.
March 18th, 2004 at 12:23 pm
Men need a choose to opt out af parenhood equal to the safe haven law like up to 30 days after finding out that they are the father. Not to be rude but they wonder why lacey petersons die, I don’t i dont have my head up my bum i see the whole picture but do you think they will give men a way out no why couse they dont wont to loose the money they get from skimming of the top of the child support order, they don’t care about lacey peterosn (however you say her name) they dont care about her unborn child they want money. you wont hear in the case, the reson behind her death but i’m betting they werent working out and she wouldnt get an abortion and he felt it was his only way out i’m not saying he had any right to kill the girl but i dont think the government has the right to put womans and childerens lives in danger by making the man feel like he has no other alternatives give him a choose equal to the safe haven laws a pole was done im sorry i dont know from whom but the # 1 killer of pregnent woman is men its prety obvious why to me but its strange you dont see them doing anything to give men relife but the second two woman cant handle parenthood and start killing there baby’s they give them relife with the safe haven law, abortions, the morning after pill, adoptions all without the consent of the father. anything as long as there not paying i dont think they are supposto oblagate you just to save money ok im done hope i dint afend any one thanx for listening to me rant.
October 27th, 2004 at 2:17 am
In your free time, check some information in the field of phentermine
…
August 27th, 2006 at 4:41 am
pullover encouraging clods Egyptology subphases!- Tons of interesdting stuff!!!