GT40FIED
03-16-2006, 08:20 AM
I was thinking about this the other day while reading about a pending court case. Roe vs. Wade assures a woman's reproductive rights under the law. She can chose to end her pregnancy legally. But what if you're a guy? The case I was reading about was a case involving a man who's girlfriend told him because of a medical condition she could not conceive. He made it clear he did not want children with her. Yet, lo and behold, she became pregnant and was asking for child support in the amount of something like $500/month.
This raises an interesting debate. If a woman and ONLY a woman can legally terminate her parental rights through either abortion or adoption, doesn't this violate the equal protection clause? A man cannot force a woman to abort a pregnancy or give the baby up for adoption no matter what his understanding of her fertility is. I'm not trying to say that every man who wants to leave his child's mother should be allowed to, but in some cases men get the shaft...for 18 years. To make matters worse there's nothing they can do about it. If she wants the kid, she's got you by the balls for the next 18 years. If you don't pay because you never wanted the kid in the first place, tough shit, you're a criminal.
I'm not saying it's morally right, but if a woman can choose to give up her baby whenever she feels like it, why doesn't a man have equal standing? A pregnancy is a 50/50 proposition...it doesn't exist without both party's contribution. In that "partnership" should come an expectation of an agreement that, if a child is conceived, it falls upon both parents to provide care for it. However these days most of the burden (at least financially) falls upon the men. It doesn't matter how much the mother makes...she can take a set percentage of the father's earnings regardless of his status (or lack thereof) as a parent.
So basically I ask you this...should men have to pay through the nose if a woman is deceitful and they in turn create a child? I have yet to see a single instance where a mother pays child support to a father so I can only assume this obligation is targeted at men exclusively.
Thoughts?
This raises an interesting debate. If a woman and ONLY a woman can legally terminate her parental rights through either abortion or adoption, doesn't this violate the equal protection clause? A man cannot force a woman to abort a pregnancy or give the baby up for adoption no matter what his understanding of her fertility is. I'm not trying to say that every man who wants to leave his child's mother should be allowed to, but in some cases men get the shaft...for 18 years. To make matters worse there's nothing they can do about it. If she wants the kid, she's got you by the balls for the next 18 years. If you don't pay because you never wanted the kid in the first place, tough shit, you're a criminal.
I'm not saying it's morally right, but if a woman can choose to give up her baby whenever she feels like it, why doesn't a man have equal standing? A pregnancy is a 50/50 proposition...it doesn't exist without both party's contribution. In that "partnership" should come an expectation of an agreement that, if a child is conceived, it falls upon both parents to provide care for it. However these days most of the burden (at least financially) falls upon the men. It doesn't matter how much the mother makes...she can take a set percentage of the father's earnings regardless of his status (or lack thereof) as a parent.
So basically I ask you this...should men have to pay through the nose if a woman is deceitful and they in turn create a child? I have yet to see a single instance where a mother pays child support to a father so I can only assume this obligation is targeted at men exclusively.
Thoughts?