- Pregnancy
- Baby & Toddler
- Parents
- Getting Pregnant
- Baby Names
- Product Reviews
-
Registry
- Community
-
More
Want a personalized experience?
Download the free app
Blended Families
Hopeforthebest
member
"Is Forced Fatherhood Fair" Article
Hopeforthebest
member
opinionator.blogs.nytimes.com/2013/06/12/is-forced-fatherhood-fair/
This weekend millions of Americans will happily celebrate the role that fathers play in their families. For some families, though ? specifically those in which dad?s role was not freely assumed, but legally mandated ? Father?s Day can be an emotionally complicated occasion. And that somewhat messy reality raises a question that is worth examining today as the very definition of parents and families continues to undergo legal and social transformation.
Women?s rights advocates have long struggled for motherhood to be a voluntary condition, and not one imposed by nature or culture. In places where women and girls have access to affordable and safe contraception and abortion services, and where there are programs to assist mothers in distress find foster or adoptive parents, voluntary motherhood is basically a reality. In many states, infant safe haven laws allow a birth mother to walk away from her newborn baby if she leaves it unharmed at a designated facility.
If a man accidentally conceives a child with a woman, and does not want to raise the child with her, what are his choices? Surprisingly, he has few options in the United States. He can urge her to seek an abortion, but ultimately that decision is hers to make. Should she decide to continue the pregnancy and raise the child, and should she or our government attempt to establish him as the legal father, he can be stuck with years of child support payments.
Do men now have less reproductive autonomy than women? Should men have more control over when and how they become parents, as many women now do?
The political philosopher Elizabeth Brake has argued that our policies should give men who accidentally impregnate a woman more options, and that feminists should oppose policies that make fatherhood compulsory. In a 2005 article in the Journal of Applied Philosophy she wrote, ?if women?s partial responsibility for pregnancy does not obligate them to support a fetus, then men?s partial responsibility for pregnancy does not obligate them to support a resulting child.? At most, according to Brake, men should be responsible for helping with the medical expenses and other costs of a pregnancy for which they are partly responsible.
Few feminists, including Brake, would grant men the right to coerce a woman to have (or not to have) an abortion, because they recognize a woman?s right to control her own body. However, if a woman decides to give birth to a child without securing the biological father?s consent to raise a child with her, some scholars and policy makers question whether he should be assigned legal paternity.
Historically, it was important for women to have husbands who acknowledged paternity for their children, as children born to unmarried parents were deemed ?illegitimate? and had fewer rights than children born to married parents. Today, the marital status of a child?s parents affects much less that child?s future. Nevertheless, having two legal parents is a significant advantage for a child, and establishing legal paternity for both married and unmarried fathers is a complicated but necessary part of our public policies.
As more children are born to unmarried parents, the social and legal preference for awarding paternity to the mother?s husband becomes more outdated. When there is a dispute about fatherhood rights and obligations, the courts can use different criteria for assigning legal paternity. These include a man?s marital or marriage-like relationship with the child?s mother, his caregiving and support role in the child?s life, and his biological relationship to the child.
The legal scholar Jane Murphy has argued that a new definition of fatherhood is emerging in our laws and court decisions which privileges a man?s biological tie to a child over other criteria. In a 2005 article in the Notre Dame Law Review, Murphy wrote about paternity ?disestablishment? cases in which men who have assumed the father role in a child?s life seek genetic testing to avoid the obligations of legal fatherhood, typically when they break up with the child?s mother. Her research shows that replacing the limited ?mother?s husband? conception of fatherhood with a narrow biologically based one still leaves many children legally fatherless.
Furthermore, Murphy explains how the new definition of ?fatherhood? is driven by the government?s goal of collecting child support from men whose biological offspring are in the welfare system, as well as lawsuits from men aiming to avoid financial responsibility for their dependents. Murphy, then, reasonably proposes that judges and legislators ?recognize multiple bases for legal fatherhood? and be guided by ?the traditional goals of family law ? protecting children and preserving family stability.? Murphy argues for revising paternity establishment policies so that fewer men become legal fathers involuntarily or without understanding the legal responsibilities they are assuming.
Murphy?s proposed reforms would apply to men who have different kinds of ties to a child. They would protect a na?ve man who, in a moment of exuberance with a girlfriend, allows his name to be put on a birth certificate, and a man whose only tie to a child is biological. Coercing legal paternity in such cases leads to painful ?disestablishment? battles that are unlikely to be in the best interest of the child or promote stable family relationships. Murphy discusses cases in which legal fathers resort to violence or threats of violence against a mother and her children when child support orders are enforced against them.
I happen to be familiar with the social consequences of forced paternity because my mother worked in the district attorney?s office in Santa Clara County, Calif., in the 1970s and ?80s. I remember the stories that she told about mothers on public assistance who lived in fear that a former abuser would return to harm them or their children because of the D.A.?s enforcement of a child support settlement. Coerced paternity in such cases?where there has been little informed consent at the moment of assigning legal paternity?is typically costly to enforce and does not protect children or preserve family stability.
Related
Feminists have long held that women should not be penalized for being sexually active by taking away their options when an accidental pregnancy occurs. Do our policies now aim to punish and shame men for their sexual promiscuity? Many of my male students (in Miami where I teach), who come from low-income immigrant communities, believe that our punitive paternity policies are aimed at controlling their sexual behavior. Moreover, the asymmetrical options that men and women now have when dealing with an unplanned pregnancy set up power imbalances in their sexual relationships that my male students find hugely unfair to them. Rather than punish men (or women) for their apparent reproductive irresponsibility by coercing legal paternity (or maternity), the government has other options, such as mandatory sex education, family planning counseling, or community service.
Court-ordered child support does make sense, say, in the case of a divorce, when a man who is already raising a child separates from the child?s mother, and when the child?s mother retains custody of the child. In such cases, expectations of continued finiancial support recognize and stabilize a parent?s continued caregiving role in a child?s life. However, just as court-ordered child support does not make sense when a woman goes to a sperm bank and obtains sperm from a donor who has not agreed to father the resulting child, it does not make sense when a woman is impregnated (accidentally or possibly by her choice) from sex with a partner who has not agreed to father a child with her. In consenting to sex, neither a man nor a woman gives consent to become a parent, just as in consenting to any activity, one does not consent to yield to all the accidental outcomes that might flow from that activity.
Policies that punish men for accidental pregnancies also punish those children who must manage a lifelong relationship with an absent but legal father. These ?fathers? are not ?dead-beat dads? failing to live up to responsibilities they once took on ? they are men who never voluntarily took on the responsibilities of fatherhood with respect to a particular child. We need to respect men?s reproductive autonomy, as Brake suggests, by providing them more options in the case of an accidental pregnancy. And we need to protect children and stabilize family relationships, as Murphy suggests, by broadening our definition of ?father? to include men who willingly perform fatherlike roles in a child?s life, and who, with informed consent, have accepted the responsibilities of fatherhood.
Read more: https://www.pandce.****/thread/188865/nyt-forced-fatherhood-fair#ixzz2W7xjJvNA
This discussion has been closed.
Re: "Is Forced Fatherhood Fair" Article
No I know she didn't write it and she might not even share the opinion, which means she's just stirring up drama for dramas sake, but anyway by posting it whether you agree or not, it's an extremely unpopular opinion so she'll hear plenty of responses.
I don't take it personally. I actually agree with this article. My point is PPs are giving their opinions. Where is OPs opinion? She just posted a controversial article and then left. Did she have a question or comment? No, it looks like she just wanted to drum up some drama.
My bad, I'm at work and had been having a quiet day (hence perusing the internet).
I do intend on commenting on the article but I'll have to wait till I get home as things blew up here.
I did post this because I thought it would be a good discussion with the different scenarios we are all in.
I like this analogy.
As I (more or less) said in the other thread, I don't think women should have a monopoly on rights here.
Agree with this.
I'm in this camp too!
I think I could argue either side of this depending on how I feel that particular day, I do tend to agree with this in hypothetical situations. When it does come down to a real baby who needs formula and diapers it's harder to argue that point.
On the other hand, I don't trust teenage girls, or even young women to not try to "trap" a man, so I always told my son to assume a girl is not taking her birth control correctly, and not to have sex with anyone he wasn't willing to parent with for the rest of his life (second one goes for my girls too.) He's 21 now, and so far so good on that one!
Agree 100 percent.
Something like this happened to my uncle. He was in the army, his girlfriend got pregnant when he was home on leave, and then when he was overseas she found out, got an abortion, and didn't tell him until he got home. He dumped her and never dated anyone again, gave him major guilt and trust issues for sure! He always said he would've raised that baby if she didn't want it.
This goes hand in hand with this article as far as women now having more legal control over 'reporoductive rights.' I'll call it that.
This particular view PP mentioned has been a huge block in the back of my mind for a long time now. My mom considered an abortion with me. My dad told her if she wanted out that was fine, but he would raise me alone. He wanted me. Luckily for me, she chose to keep me. But honestly, I think it was because she could not bare the 'shame'gps of giving her child up to the father. So they got married and had me. But she still says if she had been smart she would have done it differently.
I mean so if men can opt out where does that leave a woman; abortion, adoption or what wholly responsible for a child that took two people to create? The stats about poverty and single moms are off the charts.
This is a systemic look but I think the underlying issue is that we live in a world completely based on doing what feels good, right now. That means relationships are not lasting, even having a child these days is a throw away commitment. I don't know how to change this but condoning men to opt out is probably going the opposite direction of where we should be headed
Their point is giving consent to have sex might be giving concent to get PG but the woman has all the rights to whether to be a parent or not. If the guy wants the baby she can still terminate but I she wants to keep the baby then he can be forced into some type of fatherhood even if he does not choose to be involved. Even if abortion is not a personal option for you because of your feelings it is still an option.
That is just sick Ambrvan and I am so sorry for the childhood you had. She should have never told you any of that. Our BM used to celebrate am appreciation day of SD on the anniversary of the day she decided not to have an abortion. I always found it so odd that she would celebrate this with her DD and as far as we know she never told SD why the appreciation. Especially weird after she walked away and still sent small gifts like hey look at the wonderful person I am.
I kind of agree with the article but I don't think there's any solution here. Women can't be forced to have an abortion and the state will not let men walk away if it means the state then has to provide aid. So I don't see a viable solution that will significantly change the way things are now.
Very good point.
A father absolutely has a right to walk away and many do. No one is forcing them into parenthood. They are only forced to be held financially responsible, and that is for the welfare of the child.
My DH on the other hand said it is a horrendous experience. Bm lied about being on BC and was actively trying to get pregnant. DH was 21 and really not interested in seeing her again. He still struggles to accept the powerlessness around it and the fact that she got to decide when and how he became a father. Also the fact the she made a decision that bound then together for life. It was something he absolutely wholeheartedly did not want and BM choose it for them.
Of course he had the choice not to have unprotected sex with her BUT they both agreed on that much. The rest he had no say.
Seeing my SS and loving my SS I am absolutely of the opinion that my DH should be held financially responsible.
The only truly innocent party in all of this is the kids.
IF a man doesn't want to be a father, he shouldn't have sex.
The same goes for a woman, if she doesn't want to be a mother, she shouldn't have sex
All that said there needs to be some solution the protects the child. I just don't know what it is. Maybe these kinds of articles and an open dialogue will help move us toward whatever that answer is.
And thanks to the ladies that knew I wasn't being a drama queen.
Really? You've never done it purely for enjoyment???
DH had a vasectomy & I have an IUD. (Clearly) we do not want more children. We are taking pretty reasonable precautions IMO. Yet even combined there is still a small chance of a pregnancy occurring. Should my husband and I be celibate?
Says who? According to NY state (where I was born) I have no right to this. Off topic but just saying.
IMO it comes down to this. With the exception of rape, both men and women have complete control over their bodies when it comes to reproduction. Both men and women can make the choice to have sex or not and what kind of birth control THEY want to use in and/ or on their body including sterilization. If a pregnancy occurs both men and women still have control over their body so since women carry they baby they get to make the decision about the pregnancy. It may not be the same for both sexes but it seems pretty fair.
Once the baby is born both parents have equal rights and responsibilities. Men may have to work a little harder to assert those rights but they still have them. It's a burden but so is pregnancy. Both parents can parent and financially support the baby. Both parents can walk away, allow an adoption, and give up financial responsibility. One parent can parent and the other can walk away but still have to help financially support the child. Once again, seems pretty fair to me.
In my opinion Sabrina, the child's right SHOULD trump all others.
Sorry that's it's not the reality.
I finally got bored enough to read this post. And all I can say is OH H*ll NO. This comment describes my sentiment regarding this subject:
"Much of this argument is revolving around the notion that abortions are safe and widely available in the US. Perhaps in NYC this is true, but there are many areas where they are nearly impossible to get and require a large sum of money to travel to get them.
It also ignores the biology of the situation. A woman risks her life and health. A man risks a little sperm. The situations are inevitably not equal. Since the woman risks more, the woman should have more choice.
Culturally, the woman also bears the brunt of the economics of having a child, from medical expenses to earnings potential. Again, the woman risks more with the choice to bear a child.
Men should have more contraception options so that the choices they have are stronger and more viable. But merely counting up places where a choice can be made does not make things "fair" or not.
Finally, it utterly ignores pregnancies resulting from rape. This "fair" position produces a situation where a raped woman, unable or unwilling to get an abortion, cannot even sue her rapist for financial support."
OMG, I can't believe this. I guess being raised in a church that taught abstinence I see things differently. BC is not 100% effective. Even with BC he should have been prepared for a possible pregnancy. She was 20 years old for god's sake. What if she missed a pill one day? What if the condom breaks. FFFS. His parents should have talked to him about how easy it is to get someone pregnant and to not have sex if he wasn't prepared for the consequences. I have ZERO sympathy for men like that. Seriously. OMG. So he was FORCED to have sex with a woman he didn't love?
Is this really from the woman who is still not over her fianc leaving her after she had his child? What about abstinence? And I am not saying you make no valid points but hearing someone who had a child out if wedlock make comments about the church and abstinence is really funny.
I know she takes care of her child. I just find it funny to hear someone that got PG before being married lecturing about abstainance.
Jen I actually burst out laughing when I read her reply!!! hyprocrite!!!
She is entitled to an opinion Hop. But when you start a line with I was raised in a church that thought abstinence all the while bouncing your out of wedlock child on your hip it tends to weaken your argument.
Also seeing as her ex didn't marry her the fact that 'she' may have planned the pregnancy explains why she would be screaming for women to have all the rights.