Skip to comments.The Right to Be a Father (or Not)
Posted on 11/06/2005 3:19:39 AM PST by Pharmboy
BOSTON Case study one: a pregnant woman wants an abortion. Her husband doesn't. Should he have a say?
Case study two: a woman wants to become pregnant with frozen embryos. Her ex-husband opposes the decision. Should he have a say?
The answer, legally, is no in the abortion case, and in the case of frozen embryos, almost always yes.
It might seem paradoxical, but it is emblematic of the way technology is changing the landscape of human reproduction. And it is the kind of paradox that could get more attention with the nomination of Judge Samuel A. Alito Jr. to the Supreme Court.
Since his nomination, Judge Alito's most talked-about decision so far has been his dissent in the 1991 Pennsylvania abortion case, Planned Parenthood v. Casey.
In that case, Judge Alito wanted to uphold a Pennsylvania law that required women to notify their husbands when seeking an abortion. His view was rejected by the majority of the judges, and later, by the Supreme Court, which used the case as a vehicle to uphold the legality of abortion.
(Excerpt) Read more at nytimes.com ...
And, I thought the data in the accompanying graphic would interest freepers.
I hesitate to call men who screw without conscious "men", because they are a disgrace.
On the other side of the spectrum, if the courts wish to rule that fathers who want their children to be born have no say whether they can be murdered or not under any circumstances, then the courts must rule that fathers have no obligation to provide child support under any circumstances.
Sound like lunacy? You bet. The courts are out of control.
But, then again, logic never enters the liberal mind.
Well of course the man who's wife doesnt inform him of an abortion should pack his bags and hit the trail. Only how would he know?
You are right. The author of the story used a generic appellation which is misleading. Very misleading.
But it raised in my mind an "asidem" issue; but ultimately related to the subject at hand, and beyond the issue of rights. That of "healthcare".
I believe there are some HMO's (and such) who might cover abortion. But I believe the vast bulk do not. Which means the "wife" goes to Planned Parenthood or some other abortion provider.
If we take the classic scenario -- hubby carrying the healthinsurance "head name" -- and wife as dependent listed -- if there are complications arising from that abortion -- who pays?
The left wishes abortion to be covered as a "right" in standard healthcare packages.
In this case, say "wife" has an abortion (sans husband notification), who is liable for paying the costs for care in cases of abortion after-complications?
I do not think Planned Parenthood, for example, has such capacities.
And since then the abortion is not "covered", would the household (husband and wife) pay OUT OF POCKET costs relating to that abortion? It would certainly appear so.
The "notification" clause, to my mind, is a very sound matter, and from a range of clearminded concerns.
No, I hope to not see "abortion" covered by HMOs. I think it goes so very against the hypocratic oath and is a slippery slope along the lines of "euthanasia".
Bottomline, I do think the husband should be notified when the wife is choosing to abort, and in this case purely from a consent-to-pay-out-of-pocket medical costs should they be required. (all other arguments aside for the moment.)
Look again, I think the writer stated it correctly. It's true though that many others have distorted Alito's ruling.
"If we take the classic scenario -- hubby carrying the healthinsurance "head name" -- and wife as dependent listed -- "
This is exactly why back in the beginning of feminism, women wanted the right to sign contracts in our own names.
While in this instance, insurance aside, I believe that a man who fathered a child ought to be given the opportunity to step up and take responsibility (or under the present laws, ownership) with all the obligations that entails, I also agree that a man who refuses to take responsibility for supporting the child automatically loses all right to insist that the woman not only give birth but keep and raise the child. The idea of the "Tom Cat" male who scatters children far and wide for the purpose of adding to his "legend" should be condemned not only by women but also by men. (Ditto the predatory women who give birth to the child of a wealthy sports star as a trophy and then hold up the man for extortionate child support ... although the decent man would have turned her away to begin with.)
Further down in the article it explains that the case was regarding a husband's right to notification. I agree the case study one phrase is misleading and has nothing to do with PPH vs. Casey.
While the writer states Alito's position, it is buried in the body of the article. And the writer clearly asks in his first paragraph whether wives should have to obtain a husband's consent. Studies have shown that most people read only headlines. The vast majority are going to read the first couple sentences and think that Alito ruled that wives should get their husband's consent.
The writer also fails to mention that it was a three-judge panel that decided the case. He gives the impression that it was a majority of the Third Circuit that disagreed with Alito when it was only two judges. This is a good example of how the mainstream media distorts issues.
Lies, damned lies, and statistics.
The Guttmacher Institute should know that abortion wasn't illegal before Roe v Wade, just that there were 51 laws which controlled the dirty act.
Also, look at the last graph and see how they distorted the data to look like abortion is widely favored in America. They conclude that roughly 80% of Americans still favor abortion in some circumstances. The same data, viewed another way, concludes that 76% of Americans believe that abortion should be restricted (probably to rape and incest). Who are they trying to fool?
The question of whether a man should have say shouldn't be in question because he certainly should have a say. Maybe a law requiring men to pay for half the cost of the abortion would be a good idea? I personally wouldn't need the law to support me no matter what the case. I'd die fighting for my unborn child. Those who wouldn't don't deserve to be parents and the little cowards who scurry their girlfriends off to secret abortions should be shot or castrated.
Yep...they are the think tank for Planned Murderhood. And The Times wonders why they are blleding readers...
Actually, the courts have already ruled that there is no such thing as a "father". If a fetus is not legally a human being from the time of conception, it is just a mass of tissue during this time. How can a mass of tissue possess a "father" when it doesn't even legally possess a right to life itself? How can something have a "father", then not have a "father", then have a "father" again? In today's legal world, fatherhood does not exist at all.
"Reproductive Rights" is one of those public issues where the inequality between the sexes is rarely discussed.
Reproductive rights does not exist as a legal concept for men, and men are regularly told that they have responsibilities and not rights. A man has no "reproductive rights" that a woman is bound to respect, whether in nor out of marriage, to keep the baby or not. The only right that men have is to keep their pants zipped up, as the course of their lives and their hope for posterity is entirely dependent on the woman's "choice".
I remember hearing a feminazi screeching about how vital "reproductive rights " were for all human beings, insofar as their ability to determine the course of their lives is concerned. It got me to wondering how it is that no comparable "reproductive right" exists for men other than the right to keep your trousers zipped up. A man's income can involuntarily be confiscated to care for children that he does not want, affecting the course of his life. Under the law, he is utterly responsible to support any children with his DNA, and often even for those without it. In many states, women are allowed to ABANDON newborn children that they do not want at hospitals or firehouses, no questions asked. Men don't even have any "reproductive rights" in marriage, because his wife retains her "reproductive rights" if she "chooses" to exercise them.
I don't think either sex should have these "reproductive rights", and should deal with the concequences of a pregnancy, wanted or not. But if as the feminazi says, these rights are vital to human beings, than I wish to suggest the following remedies. An unmarried man, upon being promptly notified of an unwanted pregnacy by his mate, should have the option of a paternal veto (abortion) absolving him of financial and legal responsibility for the child. A married man who discovers that his wife has had an abortion against his wishes should recieve presumptive grounds for a divorce or annullment of the marriage, with the same holding true for one who concieves against his wishes.
Than again maybe the feminazi thinks that men shouldn't qualify for "reproductive rights" since she probably thinks men aren't human anyway.
My point is that men have no "reproductive right" that is INDEPENDENT of a woman's choice, wheras women have options that can be and are exercised independently of a man's wishes. Note that this feminine reproductive veto extends to nullification of the man's wishes whether the man wants the child or not, whether in or out of marriage. While I am acutely aware that this is in large part due to the uniqueness of the reproductive process, this nevertheless leaves the man without any independent ability to influence the woman legally.
I am not even necessarily saying that this is a bad thing, but I do find it curious that we often behave as though the only party affected by the birth of a child is the woman, and to prevent a negative influence on the course of her life we must preserve her right to kill her unborn child. If unmarried, she can "choose" to keep the child and can enlist the support of the state to forcibly take money from the sperm donor against his will. And if he wants the child, then he must yield to her choice to abort.
The common response to the man is that you should have been more careful in your choice of partner, or you should have kept your trousers zipped up. Legally he is told that he has no option other than the one that the woman "chooses" to give him.
Again, I think that BOTH parties should allow a normal pregnancy to take it's course, and come to a mutually agreed upon resolution. But if we insist upon a regime where a "reproductive right" is allowed for only half of the human race, than I think that men should have some LEGAL option to influence the woman's "choice" in either direction, rather than act as though this isn't a significant life altering event for them as well. The one option that I would absolutely forbid, of course is a forced abortion. Consider paternal veto for unmarried men or presumptive divorce grounds for a married man whose wife "chooses" against his wishes.
Having said all this, I do think it unlikely to happen. Men are legally held to the strictest of standard of responsibility where conception is concerned.
Liars. See tag line.
This is an interesting ESC ping from a legal point of view and the rights of men.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.