Posted on 10/31/2001 12:34:00 PM PST by Starmaker
One of the last remaining frontiers of collegiate discourse is parenthood. For the purpose of this column, fatherhood in specific.
You don´t really hear much about it, even though it is one of the two most important things in human existence. Periodically, there will be a headline which proclaims, "Deadbeat Dad´s Bank Account Seized!". Such headlines are compliments of a rather patriphobic and misandric movement which would portray all dads in such a light. But let´s take a look at the 99.9999% of fathers who do not fit into such a negative category, and indeed, at fatherhood itself.
As a pro-lifer, I have to acknowledge that not only does a prenatal baby´s life begin at conception, but that there begins fatherhood also. It is at conception that the father and mother are conjoined to produce new life. It is at conception that the most beautiful thing on the planet, the G-d-blessed spark of innocent human life, begins it´s journey through existence.
From that moment, every good father (the 99.9999%) loves his baby, and is moved by a need to protect, defend, and care for her from that moment, through all the days of her life. This empathy, this compassion and emotional investment, is a society builder. It is what gives fathers the motivation to work, to build homes, and to try and make the world a safer place.
It should be encouraged by every legal vehicle possible.
One such vehicle involves legally acknowledging the right of every father of a prenatal baby to protect his baby´s life from conception forward. This refers of course to the 99.9999% of babies who arise from consensual relations.
Such a legal acknowledgement tells fathers that society recognizes them as equally invested in their baby´s lives. It says, "You love your baby from conception forward, and we accord that full respect."
It also incorporates the fundamental principle of our Constitution, which is no taxation without representation. After all, it is at conception that fatherhood is legally recognized for the purpose of financial assessment. It is at conception, when father and mother are conjoined to produce new life, that the father´s half of the baby´s genetic make-up is determined. It is this genetic makeup which determines that the baby will have her father´s hands, or blue eyes, or quick intelligence.
Thus, under the fundamental American guiding principle of no taxation without representation, as financial responsibility begins at conception, there must also begin the absolute right of every father to protect his baby from being aborted, chemically or surgically. It´s just the right thing to do, and the only way that fatherhood — and thus the full personhood of men — will ever truly be acknowledged.
Interestingly, the majority of polls, regardless of which side of the political fence the polltaker is on, shows a 70-80% majority favoring the full legal empowerment of fathers in so far as to recognize their natural right to prevent the abortion of their own baby, from the moment of conception forward. Indeed, this is acknowledged as an integral part of the natural role of fathers: to care for and protect their own babies.
Politically, this will become a reality in time; it is inevitable in the march towards a fundamentally egalitarian society. There will have to be a couple of Supreme Court staffing changes, but that is a good thing, and equally inevitable, given the name of the duly-elected United States President.
Of course, another critical legal vehicle entails the recognition of post-marital equal custody rights for every good father (the 99.9999%). This will eventually take the form of a judicially binding presumption of joint residential custody in the event of divorce. "Joint residential custody" simply means that all of the children of the marriage spend equal time with both parents, and thus claim their right to both father and mother after a marriage ends, just as much as while that marriage continued.
This also flows from "no taxation without representation". It very well captures the spirit of what my Revolutionary War ancestors proclaimed two hundred and twenty-five years ago: that with responsibilities must come rights, and these rights must not be abridged. Putting the principle in the context of the current discussion, fathers are deserved of an equal right to joint custody of their children, in and out of marriage. Correspondingly, fathers are to be invested with equal financial responsibility for every one of their children.
Of course, there are many other fatherhood issues. These include an equal right to be a primary caregiver, as over a million fathers in the USA are now. It includes constructive portrayals in the news media, as well as in films, television shows, et cetera.
I agree, but try telling that to the proponents of the bogus "forced-fatherhood" issue.
It should be encouraged by every legal vehicle possible.
Yup. Sadly, men are in a position (governmental, judicial, etc...) to do this, but promote fatherlessless instead.
Interestingly, the majority of polls, regardless of which side of the political fence the polltaker is on, shows a 70-80% majority favoring the full legal empowerment of fathers in so far as to recognize their natural right to prevent the abortion of their own baby, from the moment of conception forward.
I wonder if that would include carrying the babies themselves once that becomes possible.
This also flows from "no taxation without representation". It very well captures the spirit of what my Revolutionary War ancestors proclaimed two hundred and twenty-five years ago: that with responsibilities must come rights, and these rights must not be abridged.
I agree about the rights, but this shouldn't be based on men getting "bang for the buck", but on what's best for the children.
It includes constructive portrayals in the news media, as well as in films, television shows, et cetera.
And the way to accomplish this is to identify the producers and sponsors of negative portrayals of fathers, and boycott them.
How about:
He loves the child enough to have selected a decent Mother for the child years before the child is even conceived.
He loves the child enough to stay married to the child's mother even though she is impossible to live with.
Do 99.9999% of Fathers pass these tests. With a divorce rate about 50%, I don't really think so.
I think that it very telling for a Father to leave a family because the Mother is so (you fill in the term - difficult, hateful, impossible, tempermental, etc.) and expect his children to remain in the situation without his protection. You call that a good Father???
Just one of your statements...sooo....what's your point?
FMCDH
Save the histrionics, and just be a great Dad, including all the little stuff, day in and day out regardless of the prevailing culture, and in spite of the sacrifices to your personal lifestyle, and you will get the full benefits of equality, and recognition.....the key is to get past the murderers, and let the children live.
Just raising the question for others to ponder. What do you think would happen?
If Castro's military had succeeded in doing its job, Elian would have been killed for trying to escape. Do you think they would have been concerned about his father's paternal rights?
It's Castro's government, not Freepers, that has decided that fathers (and mothers) don't have any rights.
Married fathers who divorce earn joint custody by paying child support and staying involved in their child's lives. How many men do I know who have tortured the wives they were leaving by cutting a deal that he would no fight for custody, if she gave him the house and their savings? Oh, perhaps twenty-five in the past 12 years. Nice men, middle class men. Men who know the frank biological fact that women are more connected to their children than the fathers could ever be.
So as un-pc as I may be I think children belong with their moms unless mom is a danger. Women are more connected with their children and for the most part, are better caretakers.
Flame away!!
Do you know what it is like to finally win in court because the child is then old enough to speak for himself? It is not a feeling of joy or anger. It is simply a feeling of relief that you and your child can return to a semi normal life.
I disagree.
I am against "joint custody"...children should stay in one home and not be trolled along like property so the mommy and the daddy won't have their feelings hurt.
What would happen if the mother ( or the father for that matter) got sole custody every time?...you don't suppose that the parents would work a little harder at their marriage,now would you?...you think?
marriage and the parenthood of two loving and biological parents is the ideal for civilization...yes, that is not the real world....but it is the ideal.
Instead of making up more ways that make the adults happy we should be concentrating on making the children happy...which is in most cases,, one home, one family, with two parents....
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.